Thursday, 22 August 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 22 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Cheques Bill 1985 concurrently with the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill 1985. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(10.01) —This debate is on the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill and the Cheques Bill. I say at the outset that the Opposition supports both Bills. Consistent with the principle that credit should be given where it is due, the Opposition compliments the Government on bringing these two matters to fruition and promoting the two Bills presently before the House. Both the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill and the Cheques Bill will clarify substantially the law relating to cheques and bills of exchange. The Cheques Bill will provide a useful code on the law relating to cheques and, because it will provide a code contained in one Act, it will be a useful document, both to the commercial community and to those members of the general public who use cheques in their everyday lives. The code proposed by the Cheques Bill is a useful and welcome initiative. The Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill will effect some tidying up provisions in the statutory law relating to bills of exchange and substantially will remove cheques from the Bills of Exchange Act and also will contain some provision directed to modernisation of the law relating to bills of exchange. That Bill, therefore, also is a welcome initiative. At present the Bills of Exchange Act 1909 contains the statutory law relating to all bills of exchange; that is to say, bills of exchange, including negotiable bankers notes and drafts, cheques and promissory notes. What has happened in this particular area is that in 1964 the Manning Committee, chaired by the late Mr Justice Manning of the New South Wales Supreme Court, reviewed the Bills of Exchange Act and recommended that a new Act be passed dealing comprehensively with cheques. Although that recommendation was made in 1964, it is only today that we have before the Parliament for debate this new Bill proposed to be passed, which will deal comprehensively with the law relating to cheques. During debate on the Bills of Exchange Act in 1970-an interim measure pending the introduction of such a comprehensive Cheques Bill-comment was made in various quarters that some of the recommendations of the Manning Committee would require modification before they were implemented, modifications which would take account of the fundamental changes taking place in banking procedures, particularly in the use of computers. Now, just over 20 years on, the Manning Committee's recommendations are being implemented. As I have said, the Cheques Bill will provide a code relating to cheques law and for that reason it is a welcome initiative. The Government itself is not to blame for the delay in this matter. It is a complicated matter and it has had a thorough going-over. One could not say that since 1964 there has not been adequate opportunity for those interested and concerned in this field to make an active contribution to discussion on this particular matter. However, given the concern expressed in 1970 about the effect of the use of computers on banking procedures, it is somewhat surprising to note that the Cheques Bill does not deal with electronic transfers of money. In his second reading speech, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said that it would be premature to make any decision regarding legislation on electronic funds transfer systems pending receipt of the report of an interdepartmental working group that had been established to consider such systems. We urge members of that working group to apply themselves with diligence and expedition so that it is not another 20 years before we have law, if statutory law is necessary, relating to the electronic transfer of funds. I turn now to the two Bills. I address some brief remarks, because that is all that is needed, to the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill. The primary purpose of this Bill is to remove from the Bills of Exchange Act the operation that it presently has on cheques. There is to be a separate code on cheques law contained in the Cheques Bill. The Manning Committee considered it inappropriate that the same rules should apply to commercial Bills of exchange as apply to cheques, which are, of course, used primarily by consumers. The Bill before us implements some changes to the law in this matter. It also implements some further recommendations of the Manning Committee. In the first place, an amendment will be made to the Bills of Exchange Act to permit bills to be drawn for a specific sum plus bank charges. This is in accordance with current commercial practice but is not permitted under the existing law. A sound general principle should be that statutory law reflects the commercial practice and therefore this proposed change is welcome and we support it. Secondly, there will be an amendment to the present requirements for noting and protesting of bills of exchange. At present the Act requires that the holder of a dishonoured bill of exchange must have the bill noted and, in the case of a foreign bill, protested within 24 hours. This is often quite impossible to do within the time allowed and failure to protest the bill within that period may operate to destroy the holder's rights to sue upon a dishonoured bill. The proposed amendment will provide greater flexibility to these provisions. Those who wish to study further this particularly gripping subject will have to examine the Attorney-General's second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum where the subject is further pursued. There again we support the proposed change. The Bill also provides steps to be followed where a bill of exchange is lost or destroyed before it is overdue. The proposed amendment provides that the former holder of the bill may request the drawer to provide a replacement bill and it details the means by which such a request may be made. The Bills of Exchange Act after amendment will not operate in respect of cheques and that constitutes further amendments contained in the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill. I turn to the Cheques Bill which will codify the law relating to cheques. It is the major recommendation of the Manning Committee and one could not say that it has not had a good going over since 1964. We support the main thrust of the Bill. It is not necessary for me to elaborate in any detail on the matters contained in the Bill. Let me simply say, first of all, that as the Bill contains a code relating to cheques law it is not surprising to find that the Bill deals with the form of cheques, with order and bearer cheques, with delivery of cheques, with consideration for cheques, with negotiability, with pre- sentment, with liability on cheques, with the duties and liabilities of banks, and with other more particular and detailed related matters. In addition, the Bill clarifies the law on cheques in a number of areas where one can say that there is some existing uncertainty and, insofar as the law clarifies that, the Bill therefore is welcome. I turn finally, however, to a few of the more specific aspects of the Bill which deserve special attention. The first is the matter of bank cheques. The Bill we are debating will, with some exceptions, apply to bank cheques as well as to cheques which we might regard as normal, ordinary cheques drawn by consumers and used in their own domestic and commercial pursuits. The first point to understand is that the Bill will apply to bank cheques; that is to say, those cheques drawn by banks, with which all of us who have attended conveyancing settlements will be familiar. Although bank cheques are regarded by large sections of the community as a safe substitute for currency and, indeed, as the equivalent of cash, some concern has recently been expressed, particularly in Sydney, as I understand it, about the practice of some banks dishonouring such cheques. That is to say, they have dishonoured their own cheques which have been regarded by people as the equivalent of currency. This matter has been pursued by the Law Society of New South Wales because it is mainly in the area of conveyancing transactions where the problem has arisen. Although we are not proposing any amendments to cover that situation, it must be said, without any qualification whatsoever, that this practice is undesirable. As I have said, bank cheques are the equivalent of cash. People rely upon them as being the equivalent of cash, and it is thoroughly undesirable that banks should dishonour their own bank cheques. One can well understand that they can and, indeed, should be dishonoured in the case of theft or in the case of forgery; but one would have thought not otherwise. Indeed, it can be said that the bank holds itself out as being under a commitment to meet the cheque when it is presented. In this situation, one is therefore faced, as one is often faced with, on the one hand, a practice which must be said to be undesirable, and, on the other hand, with the question of whether there is a case for regulation of the situation by statute law. Should it be controlled by law to prevent this happening, or should it not? After considering the matter, we have come down on the side that there should not be excessive regulations imposed on banks or, indeed, on other sections of the commercial community. We believe that it is a matter for the commercial community itself to sort this out. From recent discussions I have had with one of the banks, I gather that it has to a large extent satisfied the concerns of the Law Society of New South Wales. It will still be the situation, as I understand it, that the bank will be in a position where it can and will dishonour cheques which have been forged or which have been stolen, but the view of the bank is that in a normal case a bank cheque will be regarded as the equivalent of cash and will not be dishonoured. That is a healthy attitude to take. We hope that it is one which is continued. As I say, there is no need at this stage for excessive regulation to control the relationship between banks and their customers in the area of bank cheques, but it may well be in the future that there is such a case. Therefore in our role as an Opposition, we simply draw attention to this practice. We hope that it does not continue except, as I have said, in those cases of theft or forgery. We therefore take the same view the Government takes on this matter, namely, that the approach set out in the Bill is the correct one. That is, the same law should apply to all cheques, including bank cheques. We take the opportunity of saying to banks that they should look to their own responsibilities, and one of their significant responsibilities is to live up to the mandate that they extend by issuing bank cheques. The second matter to draw attention to is the transferability of cheques. The Bill alters the existing law in relation to the transferability of cheques. Under the Bills of Exchange Act a bill of exchange may be made non-transferable. However, the Manning Committee recommended that every cheque should be capable of being transferred by negotiation until it has been discharged. This recommendation has been implemented in the Bill before us and the change will be of particular importance to those people who do not have bank accounts and who rely upon the transferability of cheques, and those who for convenience, for example, cash their cheques with shopkeepers. The third matter is that of electronic pre- sentation. The Bill provides that banks will be able to present cheques by physical presentment as they now do, or by what are referred to as `any other means'. The phrase `any other means' is intended to include transmission of the particulars of a cheque by electronic means. This important change takes into account developments in technology. It is expected that this development will significantly speed up the process of funds transfer enabling faster clearance of cheques and will save the banks countless millions in transport costs, such as the cost of transferring paper from bank to bank. I can understand the concerns of some people in rural areas about this and I have discussed the matter with them. But the reality is that it is important that cheques should be cleared as quickly as possible and if they can be cleared after presentment by electronic means that would be a step forward. Again we compliment the Government on making this particular amendment. The Bill also contains two mechanical changes to which I would like to draw attention. The first is the extension of the valid mandate of a cheque to the drawee bank by three months so that a cheque will now not become stale until 15 months after the date on which it is drawn. Secondly, an amendment will be made to the existing law to cover the situation where there is an inconsistency between the words and figures describing the sum ordered to be paid on a cheque. Previously, in the case of an inconsistency, effect was given to the words expressing the sum to be paid and the figures on the cheque were ignored. But under the Bill a cheque will be deemed to be an order to pay the lesser of the two sums. Finally, because it is not necessary to pursue these Bills in any more extensive detail, I come to what I think I can describe as the only area in these Bills which is somewhat unsatisfactory, and that is that relating to the vesting of and access to paid cheques. As the Attorney-General has said, under this Bill the possession of paid cheques will lie with the drawee, that is the bank upon whom the cheque is drawn. This is the same approach that is taken in the Bills of Exchange Act. The drawer's rights in relation to paid cheques-that is after they have been met-are not specifically dealt with by the Bill but those rights are left to be governed by the common law and under the common law the drawer is entitled to ownership of a cheque once it has been paid. To this it must be added for our consideration the fact that the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union made certain recommendations in its interim report No. 5 relating to the retention of banking records. It was pointed out that it was important, in the pursuit against crime, that there should be some regularisation so far as the retention of banking records were concerned so that the authorities could more expeditiously follow the money trail. I think we would all agree that that is an important piece of information which those in the fight against crime must be able to rely upon. The Costigan Royal Commission report recomended that all banking records, including all vouchers, should be retained by the banks for a minimum period of seven years. Auditors and others concerned with this field are also concerned that banks need not return cheques to the drawers once details of the paid cheques are provided in bank statements and that they may, in fact, destroy the cheques after a relatively short period. Therefore, there is a body of opinion to the effect that there should be more regulation and in particular a longer period of control and preservation of cheques even though they have been met by a bank and therefore discharged. The Government's response to the Costigan recommendations in this area, which was really announced on the eve of the detailed response by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) to the recommendations of the Costigan Royal Commission, was to set up a working group to advise on appropriate action. The Attorney-General has told us in his second reading speech that, until the working group reports, the status quo in relation to access to paid cheques and vesting of those paid cheques should be maintained. We have raised this matter simply to express our view that we are concerned that the working group's recommendations will suffer the same fate as have so many deliberations of working groups, that is, that the working group will go on. It will no doubt apply itself diligently, but it will apply itself at a fairly leisurely pace and, in the meantime, the very evils which have to be rectified in this area of the law will go unchecked, and the problems that the Costigan Royal Commission has highlighted will not be resolved. It is important that this matter be concluded as soon as possible. We simply place on record that we are not satisfied that referring matters to a working group and then forgetting about them is an adequate response. We will therefore be pursuing the matter and will be keeping a close watch on the speed with which the working group applies itself to it. We will be keeping a close watch on the work that the group is doing. We will certainly want to know the progress of that work. We will certainly want to know the recommendations of the working group and, as part of that consideration, we will certainly want to know the Government's response to those recommendations of the Costigan Royal Commission dealing with the retention of bank records. That information is vital in the pursuit against crime. I am sure that the Attorney-General would agree that it is vital information; it is not something which we should just brush under the carpet and forget about because it has been referred to a working group. We will pursue that matter and we trust that the Government will co-operate with us by keeping us informed on the progress of the work of the working group. With that exception, I think it can safely be said that, after such a long period of gestation, the report of the Manning Committee has now reached fruition. It has been embodied in legislation after so many years of active consideration. As I said at the outset, credit should be given where it is due, and the Government certainly deserves credit for embodying these recommendations in legislation which is presently before the House. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.23) —Last September, I was invited to a dinner in Sydney that was attended by those people with whom I had graduated from a part time law school course 20 years before. One of those people was a former Attorney-General of New South Wales, the late Paul Landa, a close friend who died soon afterwards. I was not keen to respond to the toast to the law, but it fell to me to do so. I thought that the Attorney-General should have done it. I had had a hard week in Canberra, but I had to propose that toast. The toast was moved by a justice of the High Court and seconded by a justice of the Supreme Court, both of whom spoke brilliantly. However, the point of that little story is that the report of the Manning Committee on the Bills of Exchange Act was presented to the Commonwealth Government back in the 1960s when I was a law student. Implementation of that report's recommendations has been a long time coming forward. Today in this Parliament we are debating cognately the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill and the Cheques Bill. The Cheques Bill will codify the law on cheques which we all use. This action is not before time. The Bills of Exchange Act is 102 years old. I believe that nobody in this Parliament and very few members of the community would know what a bill of exchange was if one were placed in their hands. Some of us who are a little older may have studied bookkeeping and business principles at school. I remember when I was in second year a rather distraught De La Salle brother trying to explain business principles to a class of 104 boys. He produced what he said was a bill of exchange, which I am sure it was, but we were not much the wiser. In many parts of Australia and in many vocational groups we have essentially a cashless society. All our business dealings are by way of cheque, our shopping is even paid for by cheque or credit card and we have very few transactions where money is involved. This is common throughout society. Members of parliament have been encouraged by remuneration tribunals to have separate cheque accounts for electoral allowances, wages and so forth. Today, at long last, we have an opportunity to comment on the recommendations of the Manning Committee. I am familiar with the recommendations because in 1964 I was working in the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor's Office in Sydney as a law student. The Secretary of the committee was one of the legal officers in that office. I also knew one member of the Committee, John Peden, who is now a professor of law at Macquarie University. John must have been just a young law graduate at that time because he was only a year or two ahead of me at law school. The Manning Committee pointed out to this Parliament that the use of cheques had increased enormously since the Bills of Exchangte Act was passed and that considerable confusion and uncertainty had developed in relation to the law of cheques. The Committee recommended that there be legislation. At long last this has happened and we have this legislation before the House today. The Government announced recently that 16 new banks will be permitted to trade in Australia. I feel there must be some coincidence that this legislation is being brought forward at the same time. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), in announcing the new banks; pointed out the importance and the substantial benefits that will flow to Australia from this announcement. He also said the new banks will lead to the development of a more innovative, efficient and competitive financial sector. How that was to occur when the law of cheques was governed by the Bills of Exchange Act, which is 102 years old, I do not know. The legislation before us today-even though, as the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) says, it may have to be amended in the near future following Mr Costigan's recommendations and other matters-is still important and will be welcomed by the banking community. Banks and kindred industries employ 133,000 Australians. They have always been a source of employment of large numbers of people, I note that in May 1982 banks were employing 131,000 Australians and that, because of the recession in 1983, that number fell to 125,000. In May 1985 133,000 Australians were employed in the banking industry. The Bill before the House does not deal with the electronic funds transfer system and all the problems that arise from that. That will be a matter for additional legislation. The Treasurer, in an announcement on 25 June 1984, established an inter-departmental working group on the development of electronic funds transfer systems. This legislation deals with the vesting and access of paid cheques. This is important because clause 68 of the Bill provides that when a cheque is paid by the drawee bank, the drawee bank has the right to possession of the cheque. This approach basically follows that taken in the Bills of Exchange Act. However, this right that the drawee bank has will not disturb the common law principle that the ownership of a paid cheque vests in the drawer of the cheque. That means that if a person writes out a cheque he owns the cheque. When it is presented and paid he has a right to go to the bank and ask for that cheque back. This is the problem that Mr Costigan raised in his report in July 1983. He pointed out that a dishonest person who fears prosecution can go to a bank, demand all his cheques and then destroy them. The Treasurer set up a working party on the Costigan recommendations which reported in July this year. I, too, look forward to prompt action on the recommendations of Mr Frank Costigan. There is a problem, because the person who pays the bank for opening an account, for the purchase of a cheque book and for looking after his account historically owns those cheques, just as a solicitor's client owns the legal documents on which all bills have been paid. If one has paid one's solicitor or accountant one has a right to go and pick up all documents and take them to another solicitor or accountant or just take them home. It is the same with a cheque. If one has paid the bank charges one is entitled to go and get that cheque. The changing of this historic common law situation will be difficult. However, I am sure that, given the keen minds in the Attorney-General's Department and in Treasury, ways of getting around this problem will be found. It is important to local government. As I understand it, many shires depend for their auditing on the uplifting of drawn cheques from their banks. They write their cheques, send them out and then get them back. This is the attraction of the cheque book and cheque account for the ordinary citizen, for the man or woman in the street. One has a receipt, a record of one's payment. If necessary, for example, if there is a dispute regarding whether one has paid one's bill, one can go to the bank and get the cheque which has been cashed. The clause in the new Bill that preserves this common law rule is clause 68 (4). Other parts of the legislation relate to the banker-customer relationship. However, the main issue is the requirement in the Bill which imposes a duty on banks to present, pay or dishonour cheques promptly. Banks will be liable to the holders of cheques for breach of this duty. This is a new requirement on banks. The legislation also, for the first time, defines `bank' and `banker'. The legislation relates to the alteration of rights, duties and liabilities of persons in relation to cheques. One of the most important provisions of the Bill, clause 6, provides that, subject to certain specified exceptions, nothing in the Bill will prevent two or more persons from altering by agreement their rights, duties and liabilities in relation to one another under the Bill. An agreement between two parties cannot, of course, alter the rights, duties or liabilities of a third party. Another provision of the Bill is that relating to the transferability of cheques. One of the underlying philosophies of the Bill, which is reflected in clause 39, is that every cheque should be capable of being transferred by negotiation until it is discharged. This provision will have effect notwithstanding any agreement between the parties to the cheque, anything on the face of the cheque, for example, words indicating an intention that the cheque not be transferred, such as the words, `pay X's account only', or the crossing of the cheque. Clause 39 changes the existing law in this area. Section 13 of the Bills of Exchange Act makes it clear that a bill of exchange which includes a cheque may be made non-transferable. The inclusion of this clause in the Bill is considered desirable for the following reasons. The holder of a cheque has always had the right to negotiate or transfer the cheque instead of paying it to the credit of his or her account. Crossed cheques are the medium used for making many types of payments. Some people without such accounts find it convenient to cash cheques, for example, with shopkeepers or people who provide similar services. When the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Social Security directed recently that in future all pensioners would be paid their fortnightly stipend by payment direct to their bank account, I found that a certain number of people do not have any bank account. They live from fortnight to fortnight. One man came to me and said: `I do not have a bank account. I just go and cash my cheque and keep cash. When the cash is gone, it is gone, at the end of the fortnight'. There are still many people in our society-people who are on pensions or low wages-who have no cheque account, no bank account at all. The legislation is also important to the ordinary Australian in that it codifies the law on the crossing of cheques. The crossing of cheques will be simplified and standardised by clauses 53 to 57 of the Bill. It has amazed me to see notices up in supermarkets, even in Canberra, that cheques will be accepted provided identity is established. For the housewife, the mother of the family or the father of the family out shopping on a Saturday or late night shopping, cheques are accepted now even in the supermarkets. It is important that people know there is a legislative base for the crossing of cheques. If this legislation is passed, and I assume it will be, nothing on the face of the cheque will be effective except two parallel transverse lines, or two parallel transverse lines with the words `not negotiable' placed either completely or substantially between the lines. That is well known. I think the average person knows that if two lines are put on a cheque, or two lines and the words `not negotiable', that is the means of crossing a cheque. I suppose there are always people who want to be different. Although crossings other than those I have just referred to will not be effective as crossing, this does not mean that a bank will be able to disregard totally a non-permissible crossing if the words of the crossing, either alone or in conjunction with other circumstances known to the bank, are sufficient to put the bank on notice or on inquiry. If a person writes on a cheque the words `account payee only' this will not make the cheque non-transferable, but a court might hold that a drawee bank was negligent in not considering the implications of those words in paying a cheque to someone other than the original payee. The legislation covers the truncation of cheques, and this relates to the electronic transmission of cheques for payment and clearance. It deals also with the dishonouring of cheques. The most significant aspect of the provisos in the Bill dealing with dishonouring is that the drawee bank must pay or dishonour a cheque promptly. I was delighted during the winter recess to be able to visit the Australia Post mail sorting centre, just out of my electorate. I found that 90 per cent of mail is now delivered overnight in Sydney, which had the worst record of any part of Australia. I was absolutely delighted to find this, and I congratulate the Australia Post supervisors and employees. Ninety per cent of mail is delivered overnight and 99 per cent is delivered overnight plus one day, so people can no longer argue that a cheque is in the mail. If a cheque is to be honoured or dishonoured it will be honoured or dishonoured promptly. If it is being dishonoured, in 90 per cent of cases the dishonouring notice will be delivered overnight. I am sure that this is good news for the business community. Even the parcel delivery service is 100 per cent overnight by Australia Post. The bank does have a duty to honour or dishonour a cheque promptly. It must act as soon as is reasonably practicable. Of course, no time limit is put on this. If there are industrial problems of any sort in the bank or any other entity it would be impossible to put on a time limit. No time limit has been placed in the legislation. The Bill also deals with material alterations of cheques. Clause 69 of the legislation specifies the instances where alterations will be regarded as material. The standard of care for the application of protective provisions to paying banks is also specified. At present the Bills of Exchange Act requires with one exception the paying bank to act in good faith and in the ordinary course of business. This is not good enough. This legislation stipulates that the bank must act in good faith and without negligence. Other significant features of the Bill include the provision that a cheque will no longer be stale after one year. Henceforth cheques will be stale only after 15 months, so an extra three months grace has been added. Certainly as members of parliament we would have heard of instances where people have been wandering around or have moved house and a cheque has been stale when they received it. Another part of the legislation provides that where a cheque inconsistently describes the sum ordered to be paid and there is a difference between the words and the figures used to express the amount, the cheque will be deemed to be an order to pay the smaller of the two sums mentioned. That is provided for in clause 15. Previously where the words were different to the figures effect was given to the words expressing the sum to be paid and the figures were ignored. The decision to change that is very wise and prudent. Clause 16 of the Bill will clarify the status of post-dated cheques to ensure their validity as cheques where they meet all other necessary criteria. The legislation before the House is of great importance. It is of importance to ordinary Australians; it is important to all of us in our day to day dealings. It is a good thing that the legislation has been codified. I feel that there will be changes to the law concerning cheques arising out of Mr Costigan's recommendations but I believe that the House will support the legislation and that future generations of law students will have for the first time a Cheques Act to study. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.43) —I share a note of concern with the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) that future law students will have plenty to study in this legislation because those future lawyers and solicitors ultimately will receive plenty of remuneration from litigation arising out of confused legislation. Let us hope that the Cheques Bill and the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill lead to the simplification and streamlining that is promised. Let us hope that they will remove the areas of doubt addressed by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech and that the community at large will benefit, especially from the removal of some misconceptions about a range of aspects associated with cheques. I agree with the comments of the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) in respect of these two Bills and I agree with the honourable member for Lowe concerning the crossing of cheques. Over the years a number of misconceptions have built up in the community at large as to what constitutes a proper crossing and what does not. To quote exactly the Attorney's second reading speech-the honourable member for Lowe quoted the Minister obliquely for most of his speech: The crossing of cheques will be simplified and standardised by clauses 53 to 57 of the Bill. Nothing on the face of a cheque will be effective as a crossing except: (a) 2 parallel transverse lines; or (b) 2 parallel transverse lines with the words `not negotiable' placed either completely or substantially between the lines. That clarification is a step forward as more of the community, not just the business world, become associated with the day by day usage of cheques. Perhaps that situation is now being slightly altered further as the community swings through the cheque phase and moves on to Bankcard and other plastic card operations. It will be interesting to see in 10 years time whether the use of cheques enjoys quite the popularity with the community at large as it does today. One aspect of this legislation deserves highlighting. It has not been touched on yet in this debate. I refer to clause 62 (2) of the Cheques Bill. That is a very important clause, because it states: The demand may be made by exhibiting the cheque to the drawee bank or by any other means. Under two lines the linchpin of the operations of a large number of air charter operators right across Australia, especially Queensland and New South Wales, including a lot of the air freight business, effectively will be removed. I am not opposed to that because I think we have to accept modernisation. In speaking this morning to the Director of the General Aviation Association, Mr Barry Thompson, in Sydney, he said that, whilst the Association recognises that the legislation will cause a massive upheaval in the operation of many air charter operators, it accepts that it represents purposeful modernisation. Let us not walk away from the extent of change that this legislation will bring to the distribution methods currently in place. The House may not be aware that on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday mornings, a huge number of aircraft depart from Sydney, Brisbane and elsewhere with the express purpose of returning cheques and other bank documentation to the originating bank branch, whether it be Balranald, Wentworth or elsewhere, so that the relevant clearances can be made properly in accordance with the existing law on the centralised computer systems at the State headquarters of the major banks. In turn, that has led to some operators holding dual licences associated with bank charter operations and has allowed legal and legitimate passenger services to operate aircraft along routes which would not otherwise enjoy a passenger service. My colleague the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) has many towns in his electorate, as do I, which have an air service only because of the provisions of the existing laws on the clearing of bank cheques. The legislation before the House this day removes those provisions, so let us be clear that what we are doing with this legislation is wiping out the linchpin of air services for a number of towns in western Queensland and western New South Wales. Again I say that I accept the need for simplification and modernisation, but I would ask that the Government give great notice as to the date of promulgation, gazettal and implementation of the provisions, because they will lead to a rapid adjustment. I am sure that the banks for their part, as a matter of courtesy, will give notice of the changes. In any event, in some cases the banks are tied to contractual arrangements which will prevent them from dropping out overnight from these bank air charter operations, I would point out to the House that it would help if the Government, as part of the process of implementing this legislation after its passage through the House of Representatives and the Senate, were to telegraph well ahead the date that the provisions will come in. Any further assurance on that aspect would be appreciated, because many airline operators, such as the efficient and effective Macknight Airlines at Deniliquin and Hazelton Air Services at Cudal are very tightly run ships, employing a lot of people in a decentralised location. The removal of that one provision from the existing legislation, relating to the presentation of bank cheques, will remove the linchpin and the whole raison d'etre of that massive air charter operation which operates for at least four days a week. Of course, it is the additional hope that other specialised freight in the medical and courier fields, of a lightweight nature in terms of actual physical weight, might take its place and might be sufficient to allow onward operation of these specialised air charter operations from Bankstown through to Griffith, Deniliquin, Wentworth and many other centres scattered across eastern Australia and elsewhere. Of course, that also will take time. I highlight to the House how macrolegislation on an issue of this nature can have many widespread and important ramifications. It is worth pausing to consider this particular ramification in the hope that intentions will be publicised well ahead so that the necessary adjustments can be made without dislocation to the large number of pilots who are involved and other workers associated with the existing distribution network. I turn to misconceptions about cheques generally. I never cease to be amazed by the fact that the vast majority of the community believes that if one has a cheque account, by law one does not have any interest paid on that account. In a technical sense the concept has built up over the years that cheque accounts with trading banks do not earn interest. I wish to take a moment to praise the pioneering and most proper role of the Australian Bank in originating a system whereby through sweep mechanisms the surpluses in cheque accounts can properly accrue interest on a computerised sweep basis in a cash management trust. The community should put aside its misconceptions. I believe that the lack of information and education given to secondary school students on such fundamental matters as the operation of cheques and bankcards is something which should be rectified so that everyone is aware of all the arrangements that are available to them and so that people can utilise cheque accounts properly and in the best possible way for their benefit. Thus, if occasionally they do have a surplus it can accrue interest automatically. Again, I praise the role of the Australian Bank in pioneering that concept on the Australian banking scene. It is interesting to see other major operators following in its footsteps. I reiterate my support of the remarks of the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) in respect of this important and long overdue legislation-the Cheques Bill and the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill. I hope that upon their passage through the House of Representatives and the Senate wide publicity will be given to the changes in the interests of the community as a whole. I also hope that there will be wide publicity of the date of implementation for the reasons I have stated that are associated with the disruption that will be caused to many of the air charter operators throughout Australia. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.54) —It is my pleasure to support the two Bills before the House today which are the susbject of a cognate debate-the Cheques Bill 1985 and the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill 1985. The main purpose of the primary Bill before the House-the Cheques Bill-is to provide a separate law on cheques and this Government foreshadowed its intention to introduce this legislation when it released a draft cheques Bill for public comment some 18 months ago, in February 1984. Essentially, the Cheques Bill now before the House revises the provisions of the existing Bills of Exchange Act as it relates to cheques and it effectively confines the operation of the Act to bills of exchange other than cheques. The Cheques Bill also clarifies the law on cheques in certain areas of uncertainty and I shall touch on those in a few moments. It makes a number of very substantial technical changes to the law. I emphasise that the changes which are outlined in this legislation do not alter or affect the fundamental legal character or nature of cheques. The second Bill, the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill, contains amendments consequential upon the changes in the Cheques Bill. In summary, we can say that these two Bills which are supported by the Opposition do two primary and very useful things. They will clarify with a great deal of certainty for the business community the law in relation to cheques and, more importantly, they will simplify the operations of the law, the definition of cheques and so on for the general public. It will make the whole operation of that aspect of the financial system that much simpler to understand and operate for the general public. As the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) mentioned, this legislation arises from the report of the Committee headed by the late Mr Justice Manning of the New South Wales Supreme Court. That Committee reviewed the Bills of Exchange Act. Perhaps the principal and certainly the most important recommendation which came from that Committee was that there should be separate legislation delivery with cheques and that is the basis of the legislation before us today. The recommendation from the Manning Committee was based on three critical factors. The first was that since the enactment of the Bills of Exchange Act, the use of cheques had increased enormously compared with other bills of exchange. Secondly, there had been considerable confusion and uncertainty in relation to the law on cheques because that law and the law on other bills had become somewhat intertwined under the Bills of Exchange Act. The third critical factor was that the law on cheques had assumed great importance to a large number of people, whereas the law relating to other bills of exchange was of significance to only comparatively few people. The principal Bill before us today represents some major and technical reforms to this area of the law. Before I touch on the content of the Bill, I emphasise that there has been considerable public consultation by the Government in relation to the changes that are proposed in this legislation. Prior to the public exposure of the draft Bill, discussions were held throughout last year and before that with all the major representatives of the financial institutions affected by the legislation. I will name a few-the Australian Bankers Association, the Australian Merchant Bankers Association, the Commercial Law Association and the Law Council of Australia. There was also discussion with and representation from other financial institutions, such as the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies and the Australian Association of Credit Union Leagues, as well as a number of relevant trade union organisations. I mention the matter of consultation because it is something that I was aware of in my own electorate of Bendigo. Honourable members are probably aware of the Bendigo Sandhurst Building Society which has a branch in Melbourne. I have had specific contact and consultation with that building society, which is in my electorate, in relation to this Cheques Bill. I take the opportunity to say that that building society expressed great interest and that it made some representations. It is a society which is held in very high esteem by the people of Bendigo. It was first established in 1858 as a terminating building society, so it has well over 100 years of history behind it. In 1983 it merged with the Sandhurst Building Society and this year it merged with the Sunraysia Permanent Building Society. It is a fairly large society and it now has 27 branches across Victoria, some of which are in my immediate area of interest-at Bendigo and Castlemaine. There are other branches in Echuca, Shepparton, Swan Hill, Footscray, South Melbourne, Williamstown and so on. I thought I would mention that because this particular financial institution is very important in my electorate as it currently employs more than 209 people. I am sure that honourable members will be interested to hear that figure, especially when they compare it with the 77 people who were employed by the society three years ago in 1982. The economic recovery has certainly assisted the Bendigo Sandhurst Building Society and, of course, it has had good management as well. That economic recovery is reflected in the assets held by the Society. At June 30 last year these were $308m, while two years ago they were $177m. As I said, the Society has expressed a close interest in the Cheques Bill and the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill before the House. I should like to comment on the contents of the Cheques Bill. I have mentioned that it is a very substantial Bill. It is a technical Bill, and it makes significant changes. I will not comment on all the proposals in the legislation, but the Bill deals with five major sections. It deals with the question of cheques in general, with their form and their definition. It looks at the negotiability of cheques. It considers the question of presentment and dishonour. It looks at liabilities on cheques and at the duties and liabilities of banks. Within those broad frameworks there are five or six areas on which I shall briefly touch. The first area, and perhaps the most important, is that dealing with the definition of a bank, because the Cheques Bill brings that into account for the first time. As the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said, the Bill departs from the approach of the Bills of Exchange Act in relation to the definition of a bank. The definition provides that `bank' should cover, whether incorporated or unincorporated, a number of elements. The first of those is that, obviously, it includes the Reserve Bank of Australia. Second, the definition of a bank includes any body corporate authorised under the Banking Act of 1959 to carry on banking business in Australia. The third aspect of the definition is the State banks, and the fourth, sub-section (d), is a person who carries on the business of banking outside Australia. That provides a fairly wide definition of a bank, which departs a little from the previous approach of the Bills of Exchange Act. The second aspect I want to look at is the form and definition aspect of the legislation, and again I want to look at the definition of a cheque, because that is provided for in this legislation. I will very quickly run through that because members of the public in particular will be interested in learning how this legislation sets out exactly what a cheque is. Firstly, a cheque is an order to pay. Secondly, it is unconditional. It must be in writing. It must be addressed by a person to a bank. It must be signed by the person giving the cheque. It must require the bank to pay on demand, and, of course, it must be for a certain sum of money. They are the characteristics that make up a cheque and they are defined in the legislation. The simple fact of having it defined will help financial institutions and the general public in their understanding of the nature of this legislation. The third aspect I want to look at is the question of transferability of cheques. One of the underlying philosophies of this Bill, which is reflected in clause 39, is that every cheque should be capable of being transferred by negotiation until it is discharged. That recommendation comes, again, from the Manning Committee. It would seem that the Manning Committee intended that every cheque should be transferable in its origin and that it should remain transferable until the rights of the parties on the cheque are discharged. That is an important aspect of this legislation dealing with transferability, and just restates the fact that every cheque should be capable of being transferred by negotiation until it is discharged. The question of the crossing of cheques has been mentioned briefly by previous speakers. Again, it is an important part of the legislation, which provides that the crossing of cheques will be simplified and standardised. That is undertaken in clauses 53 to 57 of the Bill. The legislation provides that a cheque will be a crossed cheque if it clearly bears on its front two parallel transverse lines, or, secondly, two parallel transverse lines with the words `not negotiable' either completely or substantially between the lines. The legislation makes the point that nothing else, in the sense of that definition, will be considered as a crossing. From the public's point of view, that is an important change because it simplifies and standardises the existing legislation. Many speakers have touched on the subject we formally define as truncation of cheques. In many ways, perhaps the most significant feature of this Bill is the presentment provisions which will enable the truncation of cheques. Clause 62(2) places no restriction on the means that may be used to demand payment of a cheque otherwise than by delivering the cheque to the drawee bank. The notes that accompany the Bill make the point that thus, for instance, the demand could be made by exhibition of a facsimile copy of the cheque, transmission of a copy of the cheque, or transmission of particulars of the cheque. It would seem highly desirable to leave completely open the means which may be used to effect presentment. That is the major change. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) suggested that that change would have implications for several sections of the aviation industry. In my area of Bendigo flights come in daily to take cheques back to the Melbourne head offices of banks because that is what is currently required under the legislation. Clearly, under clause 62(2), dealing with truncation and effective communication of the meaning of a cheque, the legislation makes it clear that any transmission of a copy of a cheque via a facsimile and so on will be considered to incorporate its communication. That is a significant change which has been brought about simply by the growth of technology. Obviously, similar effects in terms of employment or perhaps labour displacement because of technology changes would have occurred with the development of the telephone or telegram from the original mail system. In the same way we now have electronic means of transferring the written form, and this legislation provides for that. I conclude with some brief remarks on the dishonouring of cheques. Perhaps the most significant aspect of the provisions in the Bill dealing with dishonour is that the drawee bank must pay or dishonour a cheque promptly. Clause 67 makes it very clear that once a cheque has been presented, a drawee bank will be under a duty to either pay or dishonour the cheque as soon as it is reasonably practicable. If it fails to do so, the bank, unless it has become aware of some defect of the holder's title or that the holder has no title to the cheque, may not dishonour, and it will be liable to pay the cheque to the holder. That is an important piece of legislation, particularly as far as the public is concerned, because it incorporates into our legislation for the first time the provision that a bank must pay or dishonour a cheque as promptly as is practicable. The last point I wanted to touch on, particularly in regard to the Cheques Bill, is the issue of stale cheques. Clause 3 (5) will extend by three months the period during which a cheque operates as a valid mandate to the drawee bank. A cheque will now not become stale until 15 months after the date upon which it is drawn. In summary, we have two very substantial pieces of legislation before the House. Many speakers have acknowledged that reform in this area has been overdue for many years, and perhaps for many decades. Many speakers have complimented the Government and the Attorney-General on their action in bringing this matter to a head and in bringing this excellent legislation before the House. As I said, the Cheques Bill puts into place in one Act of Parliament legislation relating to cheques. It takes some of the previously confusing aspects out of the old Bills of Exchange Act so we now have a separate Cheques Bill. It defines in a legal and technical sense all of the operations of cheques within the financial system. It provides most importantly clarification for the business sector and the financial institutions that deal with cheques. But perhaps even more importantly it provides a range of reform measures to the cheques system as we know. It simplifies and standardises the cheques system so that the general public which uses cheques will be able to use them more simply and know more about the rules of their operation than perhaps they have in the past. I think the Government, and particularly the Attorney-General, are to be complimented on this excellent piece of legislation. The Government has received the praise of all speakers today and I certainly endorse these two aspects of the legislation before the House. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(11.11) —in reply-I thank honourable members who have participated in this debate. The honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) led for the Opposition and indicated that the Cheques Bill and the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill were not being opposed. I also thank my colleagues the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) for their contributions. I am also aware that the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) raised specific matters. I will endeavour to reply briefly to honourable members, some of whose contributions were very novel and helpful and which raised interesting matters. Whilst the Cheques Bill is technical in legal terms it is of major interest because everybody uses cheques and understands them, although they would hope that they would have more money to guarantee their use more often. I have no doubt about that. The honourable member for Menzies quite effectively raised the issue of the difficulties of bank cheques being dishonoured and the concern that that would cause in a number of areas, particularly in what is called conveyancing transactions. But there are certain circumstances which apparently have caused banks to indicate that they might have to dishonour a bank cheque. I think those circumstances arise only where customers, having got the bank to give them a cheque, then change their minds on the basis that they no longer want the cheque to be issued but want to withdraw the funds they made available. So there have been some difficulties in particular circumstances. I am advised that that has happened and has caused some discussion, particularly with the Law Society of New South Wales. As a result of recent consultations between the banks and the legal profession the banks have given certain assurances about their practice in this area and these assurances have been accepted. I have in front of me a letter from the Law Society dated 26 June last indicating that that is the position. It states: I advise that I have now received a further letter from the Australian Bankers Association which clarifies a number of points and which represents in the view of this Society- that is the Law Society of New South Wales- a major step towards the situation which the Society believes ought to pertain. Accordingly at this stage no further assistance is required by way of legislation . . . I give the honourable member an assurance in that regard that if there are difficulties we will certainly keep them under review. Another matter which the honourable member legitimately raised is the pursuit of crime, the money trail and the need to retain the cheques for a period sufficient to enable them to be made available to law enforcement agencies. In this modern age the law enforcement agencies and people in the legal profession do have difficulties in getting the co-operation of those in the financial quarters-that might even include the Department of the Treasury-on the basis of access and the question of privacy. A conference was recently held in Paris at which reports were made on the subject of the possibility of there needing to be some surrender of what are called the rights of privacy in terms of bank records in the interest of criminal pursuit. It is significant that part and parcel of what we call mutual assistance treaties between countries will be the requirement that one country can have access to bank records held in another country in the names of people it wishes to pursue. I do not see any objection to that because whilst there needs to be a natural preservation of the rights of privacy, we also have to take into account the rights of people injured by criminal conduct. If massive amounts of money are available as a result of that conduct it is prima facie evidence as to why people should be expected to explain money transactions. I hope our Taxation Office and Treasury officials understand that the world is changing and that there might need to be some understanding of the problems in law enforcement and that we might need to have access to people's bank accounts. It is also known that a number of people open bank accounts in a number of different names and the question of identity has to be properly verified. This all relates to what the honourable member for Menzies said about the need to retain cheques for a sufficient period. The working party, the Costigan Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, has completed its report in that respect but not in respect of what is called the electronic transfer of funds, which is still under consideration. We are dealing with the first aspect of the retention of cheques. I am advised that all the needs are likely to be met on the basis that ownership would be vested in the drawee banks but there would be a right of access to the drawers of the cheques, and that while at this stage no statutory minimum period has been suggested it is thought that a period of four years, which is the present custom, might be sufficient to recommend. That matter has not been finalised but it goes towards what the honourable gentleman was saying about there needing to be a sufficient period-we might want seven years-for the retention of cheques. Of course it is thought they should be held by the bank otherwise the evidence would be destroyed if they were returned to the drawer. So I am aware of the difficulties that the honourable gentleman raises and I assure him that everybody agrees that we need to pursue this matter with a clear understanding of what Costigan had in mind. It is very interesting that we now find that the electronic transfer of funds will take place in respect of credit unions and building societies. The State governments have responsibility in that field. I congratulate the respective State Ministers for wanting to be involved in the working party that has been set up here to deal with the electronic transfer of funds. I hope they are given every assistance to participate in that area because it will lead to uniformity in Australia. I am aware also that if they are not given the same opportunities to participate in the working party, as Federal departments are, they might decide to do their own thing in their State. This will cause no end of confusion. So I hope those in Treasury and other places understand that when the States request to participate in a working party on this basis that it is in the national interest and not in any peculiar interest. This is very clear as the electronic transfer of funds will relate to organisations such as building societies and credit unions and not necessarily only to banks. It is important we get it right because uniformity of legislation will assist in the commercial area. I mention that because some concern has been expressed, particularly from Western Australia. There was some misunderstanding among certain representatives who wanted to attend the working party as to whether the States had a role to play. They do have a role to play and I have given an undertaking to the State Ministers that we will consider any representation they may wish to make because the question of fraud is likely to arise. The honourable member for Farrer raised an interesting point in relation to the physical transfer of cheques by aircraft which looks like being replaced by the more effective electronic means. I am aware that this might affect aircraft operations. It is a novel approach. I have no doubt that it will affect the transfer of moneys out of bank accounts by making it a lot quicker, which might cause some concern with those people who would prefer the aircraft not to get there too quickly. We cannot hold back progress, and the honourable member will understand that. Let me give him the assurance that there will be a sufficient time lapse before these regulations are brought into play. We will keep the honourable member informed. So, they will come as no surprise. Let us hope that in the meantime the appropriate accounts will be built up. The honourable member for Lowe raised the issue of access and the vesting of rights of drawers, particularly with regard to local government agencies and the general cheque-issuing public. I assure him that there will be guarantees that any scheme will preserve the rights of drawers generally, and particularly those of local government, to gain access to those cheques. The working party's report will take account of all those matters. The honourable member for Bendigo talked about the need to do something in this area. Reform is well overdue in view of the fact that the report of the Manning Committee was prepared some 21 years ago. It is about time we introduced relevant legislation in this House. I thank the honourable member for Bendigo for his kind remarks on our bringing this legislation forward. I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I have no doubt that amendments to the legislation will have to be made some time, but I hope that they will be made very speedily. If they are necessary, I expect that they will be made within the next 12 months. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 22 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Terri- tories)(11.23) —I move: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 20 August 1985, namely: The construction of additional administrative accommodation at the Australian National Gallery. Under clause 4 of its resolution of appointment, the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House is authorised to consider and report on matters coming within the terms of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, as may be referred to it by the Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957, or by resolution of either House of the Parliament. Section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 gives the Parliament control over the erection of buildings or other work within the Parliamentary Zone, which is defined in the Act. Sub-section 5 (1) of the Act provides as follows: No building or other work is to be erected on land within the Parliamentary Zone unless the Minister has caused a proposal for the erection of the building or work to be laid before each House of Parliament and the proposal has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. On 21 March 1985, by letters addressed to the joint chairmen, in my capacity as Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957, I referred to the Committee a proposal for the construction of additional administrative accommodation at the Australian National Gallery. This proposal was tabled in the Senate on 26 March 1985 and in the House of Representatives on 25 March 1985. The Committee has considered the proposal and has agreed to recommend its approval by the Parliament. The proposed additional administrative accommodation at the Australian National Gallery will be provided in new building work which is to be constructed on the existing roof of the Gallery, over the small theatre at level 8. The overall area of this additional accommodation will be approximately 400 square metres. The proposed new building form will present a simple glazed facade to King Edward Terrace, repeating the detail of the conservation glazing behind. It will not be visible from Kings Avenue, Lake Burley Griffin or the High Court of Australia. The estimated cost of the work is approximately $420,000. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(11.25) —Madam Deputy Speaker, the recommendation relating to the Australian National Gallery is obviously supported by the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. Therefore, the Opposition supports the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 20 August. Consideration of Senate's amendment. Senate's amendment- Page 2, after clause 4, insert the following new clause: ``Functions of Authority ``4A. Section 11 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end of sub-section (1) the following word and paragraph: `; and (e) as required, to co-ordinate its activities with the activities of authorities and persons in other countries performing functions similar to the functions of the Authority.'.''. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(11.26) —I move: That the Senate's amendment be disagreed to, but that, in place thereof, the following new clause be inserted in the Bill: Co-operation with law enforcement agencies and co-ordination with overseas authorities ``4A. Section 17 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end the following sub-section: `(2) In performing its functions under this Act, the Authority may co-ordinate its activities with the activities of authorities and persons in other countries performing functions similar to functions of the Authority.'.''. We disagree not so much with the essence of what the Senate has proposed but rather with where it proposes to place it. We are suggesting to the Committee that an amendment be made to section 17 of the principal Act, which does not deal specifically with the functions but rather deals with the co-ordination of the National Crime Authority. I might just rehash a few points for the purpose of placing them on the record. In May during debate on the National Crime Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill we discussed an amendment moved by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar). At that time, I informed the Parliament that a similar amendment had been proposed to the Government by the National Crime Authority and the Government set in train consideration of this matter by referring it to representatives on the Inter-Governmental Committee. No opposition to this proposal was received from any of the representatives at the IGC meeting. Subsequently, the Government was pleased to state that in the Budget session it would move to accept such an amendment as quickly as it possibly could. Here we are, in the first week of the Budget session, and we are dealing with the matter as quickly as we can. I re-emphasise what I said in the Parliament in the May debate on this topic. We have given a commitment to the IGC that, whether matters originate from the National Crime Authority or from other sources, we will give notice of them to the IGC so that people will feel involved in any amendments that may be moved subsequent to the passing of this legislation in this House. As the proposed amendment acknowledges, the success of some of the performances of the National Crime Authority may depend very much on the co-operation it receives from other agencies not only in this country but also in other countries. The extent of the success that the Authority will have in this country in terms of the legislation that has been laid down will depend upon how well the Commonwealth can co-operate with the States in ensuring that certain things are done. I point to the latest success, in the last week or so, of our law enforcement agencies. That was very much dependent upon the co-operation among the various law enforcement agencies within Australia. I am sure that we will hear a great deal more about that matter. A check of Hansard will show that in the previous debate I pointed out that those strictly interpreting the Act did not feel that there was any prohibition on the National Crime Authority doing what this amendment now specifically sets out to give it power to do. Nevertheless, this amendment probably does tidy the matter up. I might just add, for the purpose of giving information to the Parliament, that during the winter recess the Government sent me to be briefed on these matters by several countries. A great deal more emphasis is being placed upon experiences being exchanged between various law enforcement and investigative agencies throughout the world. We are treated very well by law enforcement agencies overseas in getting access to information. As we know, a lot of the major organised crime elements operate internationally and the emphasis really has to be on how much intelligence can be successfully moved between the various national agencies in order to bring such crime to an end. We are quite happy to accept the amendment, but we suggest to the Opposition that it should be placed in section 17 of the principal Act rather than making it out to be, as may have been the case with the acceptance of where it was placed previously, as a new function. I make that suggestion to the Opposition in accepting the amendment that has been handed to us by the Senate. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(11.31) —The Opposition is glad that the Government has seen the force of the arguments which it put forward in the previous sitting of the Parliament. As the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has just acknowledged, this amendment does clarify and put beyond doubt the situation in relation to overseas contacts that the National Crime Authority can establish. I think it is obviously a matter of substance because, as the Minister has just said, there is the need for much greater co-operation between both law enforcement agencies and authorities of a national crime authority nature to co-ordinate their efforts in fighting the international ramifications of big crime. I have no doubt that, now that this amendment has been accepted by the Government, the National Crime Authority will move to establish those relationships and set up the appropriate consultations between the appropriate bodies. There is quite a degree of evidence of overseas crime working in Australia. The Minister has just mentioned the recent success announced as a result of investigations and co-operations between law enforcement agencies in Australia-both the Australian Federal Police and the State police forces. Recently we had an example of international crime co-operation being exposed and the exposure being the result of, again, co-operation between law enforcement bodies in exposing a major drug ring operating in Australia and South East Asia. On behalf of the Opposition, I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Australian Federal Police on the work that it has been performing in these and other areas. I think it is important that a commentator such as Bob Bottom can say on a radio interview that the AFP is fast acquiring a major international re- putation. All the evidence that I have received recently would support that contention. While we are dealing with this question of co-operation between law enforcement agencies and the Nat- ional Crime Authority in its work, there is one area which is worrying me. I just make the point that the National Crime Authority relies heavily on sophisticated computer equipment and back-up for its work in its investigations and, of course, crime prevention authorities rely on computer equipment and the co-operation between various agencies. There have been disturbing reports recently in relation to the operation of the Customs computer. I refer to an article headed `$9m customs kit lies idle for four years'. It states: A $9 million computer bought by the Australian Customs Office has been found inadequate before it has even been used. Other parts of the article go on to say: There have been frequent computer problems in customs recently, including shut-downs of the vital checking systems used by immigration and customs authorities at ports and airports. Attempts to make the Sperry communicate directly with the ICL-- which is the computer being used by the Customs authorities-- also failed, despite investment of considerable time and effort. We have recently seen media reports of the shut- down of the Customs computer, which obviously has a big impact on immigration procedures, law enforcement procedures and the ultimate working out of the responsibilities of the National Crime Authority. I ask the Minister whether, in fact, there is any evidence that some of the allegations made about the shutting down of this computer are backed up in fact and whether the article to which I have referred has any basis in fact and, if so, what is being done about it. There is absolutely no doubt that if we are to be successful in combatting international crime and major national crime, we do need to have these highly important computer facilities operating effectively and efficiently. If that is not the case, obviously there is great cause for concern. Another aspect of the National Crime Authority functions has been worrying me; that is, the fairly clear evidence that the changeover from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the National Crime Authority has not gone as successfully and is not going as successfully as we would like. The Opposition has been particularly vocal and consistently concerned about the efficiency and effectiveness of this handover from the Costigan Commission to the National Crime Authority. I think there is mounting evidence that all is not well in that changeover. There have been disputes about the effectiveness of work being done by the Costigan Commission. I do not have any information as to whether or not the criticisms are relevant, but I do know that if we are to have a National Crime Authority, working properly, that changeover must be effective and, if it is not, action must be taken quickly to put things right. I am concerned that the operation of the National Crime Authority, split as it is between New South Wales and Victoria at present, may need some further improving so that the work of the Authority goes ahead consistently. We all know that Mr Justice Stewart has a succession of responsibilities at present. But I make the point that it is important that the National Crime Authority establish its effectiveness in the minds of the community as swiftly as possible and, therefore, the Government has to make sure that the resources required to be made available to the Authority are in place and that support is given to the Authority in ways which will enable it to pursue it responsibilities urgently. We recognise that a number of references have been sought by and granted to the Authority and obviously work is going on in relation to those matters. One would only say that if there is this breakdown in communication in the handover process between Costigan and the Authority, or if there are problems arising from the splitting of the physical locations between Sydney and Melbourne, they must be addressed urgently because this Authority is fundamentally important to this nation in the breaking of major crime organisations. If it is unsuccessful, we probably will not get another chance in the future to deal with this problem. This chance has been presented to us at the current time through the establishment of the Authority. Overall, the Opposition is glad that the Government has seen the light and has accepted the proposed amendment in broad terms. I have noticed that there have been slight changes to the wording. We have no objection to the revised placement in the Bill that has been suggested by the Government. To sum up, we welcome the Government's acceptance of our proposition. We think it will add to the efficiency and effectiveness of the Authority. Finally, we again reiterate our very great concern that the Authority be given full support and that lingering problems which seem evident in the changeover between Costigan and the Authority are overcome as quickly as possible so that the Authority can get ahead and establish its bona fides, its reputation and its worth not only with the Government and the Opposition but, more importantly, with the people of Australia and, hopefully, bring to justice those elements within our community who are so far escaping legal enforcement. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(11.40) —In reply-I shall respond to a couple of matters that have been raised by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar). First, I deal with some of the matters which were raised on radio last week concerning problems with the Australian Customs Service computer. Obviously, those matters, such as whether the computer problem allowed people to enter Australia illegally, would be better directed to the Minister responsible for Customs. If those matters were sent to the law enforcement agencies, of course, the normal procedures would be carried out. Everyone would be concerned if some scrutiny we had set in place were in some way brought to a halt because of problems with a computer. More particularly, I comment on the honourable member's views about the hand-over of the operations of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the National Crime Authority. The National Crime Authority has been under a great deal of scrutiny since it commenced operation in mid-1984. It has been operating now for some 15 months, which is not very long. People fail to understand the difference between the Costigan Commission and the National Crime Authority. The Costigan Royal Commission put together an enormous amount of information, a lot of which will be very beneficial to the National Crime Authority and a lot of which will disappear because it is only general information which perhaps is no longer of any benefit either to any law enforcement agency or for the purposes of any further inquiry. However, the National Crime Authority is to bring about prosecutions. To put those matters into final detail is an exercise much different from that pursued by the Costigan Commission. We set up the National Crime Authority as quickly as we could. We gave it all the resources that Costigan had. In addition, as a result of the National Crime Authority being a fixed operation it was felt that it should operate from at least two major cities. As the honourable member probably knows, that operational base has now been extended. The NCA now also has an office in Western Australia. It has just moved into its fixed premises in Sydney. I do not know whether the honourable member has visited Mr Justice Stewart in Sydney yet. However, I am sure that he would be quite impressed with the operations the Government has made available to the NCA in Sydney and with its new premises. There have been technical problems in giving the National Crime Authority a home and the people it needs. As for its resources, whilst we are all very proud of the way in which we got down the deficit this year, in the 1985-86 Budget, the NCA did not contribute to our doing so because we gave it all the resources that Mr Justice Stewart felt that it required. That was the commitment given to the NCA by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in 1984 and that is the commitment we have kept in the past two Budgets. The NCA has experienced delay problems because it has had to use normal Public Service Board procedures in advertising for and recruiting the sort of staff it required, which it found a bit of a stumbling block. On a number of occasions it had used consultants to do specific jobs. Through its references it has taken upon itself some of the most major investigations that perhaps this country has ever seen. So the NCA does not take on any small operation in terms of its functions under the National Crime Authority Act. It has taken on very major responsibilities. Unfortunately, we cannot have supermarket justice in this country. Some people want to judge the NCA on how many people may be in Long Bay Gaol, Pentridge or somewhere else and how many people it has been able to put behind bars in 15 months. The fact is that major crime figures in this country are surrounded by some of the best legal talent this country has to offer. There are many difficulties to be faced by the NCA and the Director of Public Prosecutions in getting people behind bars. Nevertheless, the criminal element of this community is now far more aware of what has been brought about and as a result of the information that has been made available to the Australian public by Costigan and now by the operations of the NCA and the improved level of efficiency of the Australian Federal Police. Life is going to be far more difficult for criminals in Australia infuture. I am not saying that they also will not become a little more sophisticated in their operations. Nevertheless, we cannot judge the operations of the NCA by how many people it may have been able to prosecute successfully in the 15 months of its operation. Anybody talking to the Authority and being briefed by it to the extent that people can be briefed without breaching any of the matters of confidence which are under investigation would be impressed by the way it has gone about its work and by the talent it has been able to attract to the work that has to be done. Certainly, it has received every reference it has sought from the inter-governmental committee, whether it be a Commonwealth or a State reference. I have very high hopes that, in the long term, when people are able to judge the merit of the NCA on the basis of a fair period of operation, they will certainly come down on the side of giving it favourable treatment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Consideration resumed from 20 August. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 13, paragraph 34 (c), lines 30 to 37, leave out the paragraph. No. 2-Page 14, clause 35, lines 1 to 24, leave out the clause. No. 3-Pages 15 and 16, clause 37, line 34 (page 15) to line 20 (page 16), leave out the clause. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(11.47) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. A range of amendments to the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 was made in the Senate. While the Government is prepared, ultimately, to go along with the thrust of the amendments, we recognise that there may need to be some rephrasing of them in the light of the debate that has taken place in the House and particularly in the Senate. So we will come back with further amendments to the Bill perhaps later in this session of the Parliament. As the House will recall, a whole range of measures was included in the Bill which we do not want to have delayed by the consideration of these amendments. The amendment to clause 34 (c) would have the effect of removing the definition of a trade union. It struck me as somewhat extraordinary that that definition caused the Opposition some concern. The remaining amendments affect clauses 35 and 37. The amendment to clause 35 concerns authorised absences from work. The amendment to clause 37 concerns journeys to and from employment or other places involved in any authorised absences. The concern the Opposition had in the Senate in some respects went more to the question of the reference to trade union officers than to the intention to provide coverage for people during authorised absences or people involved in journeys to and from work. It is unfortunate that, in terms of what we are proposing and what is present within State legislation, the amendments go to what are quite necessary and reasonable proposals. With respect to the references in the proposed Bill to trade union officers, I am not sure, upon reading the debate in the Senate, that it was understood that what the Bill had in mind was not paid officials of the trade union movement but elected union delegates within the workplace. It may be that we need to make that very clear in some subsequent amendment. I can understand the reservations that members of the Opposition might have had with respect to paid officials, but with respect to elected delegates there are occasions in the process of union business where they may be subject to injury. I think it would be unfortunate if the Opposition were to take a totally negative attitude to trade unionists, trade unions, and indeed to elected delegates. When I was Minister for Defence Support I had occasion to work a great deal with union delegates in many government establishments. I found those delegates very often to be people quite committed to the enterprise and to the resolution of disputes and problems and to improving the productivity and the operations of those various work places. In the course of carrying out their union duties from time to time not only were they seeking to benefit those people whom they represented but very often they were seeking to improve the operation of the establishments, to resolve industrial disputes, and to upgrade the working environment and the occupational health and safety provisions that existed. I am not so naive as to think that trade union officials-or in this case work place delegates-are always right and are doing the right thing, but from my experience they very often are. In terms of compensation it is important that people be covered not only when they are actually on the job, doing their job, but also when they are involved in authorised absences or, alternatively, when they are in the course of travel. That is not unreasonable in terms of the overall approach taken by the Commonwealth and by a number of State governments with respect to compensation. We accept the amendments that have been made to this legislation at this stage and we recognise that perhaps there is a need for some rephrasing and clarification. I simply indicate that when we present a Bill later in this session we may well seek to raise these and other matters. It is my intention to seek to renovate quite extensively the Commonwealth legislation. I think it is in quite desperate need of renovation and reform. That will be a progressive process. Of course, there will be continuing consultation with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which has an interest in Commonwealth compensation, but we will be seeking also to bring to the Parliament amendments that are responsible in terms of government charges and the escalating bill for compensation. It is as much a matter of concern to me as it is to members of the Opposition that we have seen this growth of expenditure in relation to compensation. The root causes are very often related to the inadequate standards of occupational health and safety, for which the Government has a concern, not only in respect of Commonwealth employment but also in respect to the private sector. If we can attack the root causes of injuries, accidents and industrial disease there will be a pay-off in the long run in terms of the over large compensation bill we are paying in this country, both in the public and in the private sectors. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(11.56) —I am happy that the Government has seen fit to agree to these amendments. The Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill was originally presented to this House in tremendous haste in the last week of the last session of Parliament, when we had more Bills coming at us than we could adequately deal with. Obviously legislation was coming through not having been fully considered. At that time we were told that the legislation had to pass through this chamber, but later events, such as the hold-up because of these amendments in the Senate, proved that that was not necessarily the case. The amendments that were passed in the Senate were originally presented in this chamber. I recall that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) was not present at the table at that time to consider his own Bill. If he had been he might have been able to accept those amendments at the time and they could have gone through to the Senate unimpeded. If there has been a delay in the delivery of services in respect of the other parts of this Bill it is not the Opposition's fault. The amendments were in this chamber at the time and the Minister was not able to consider them because he was occupied on other business. I believe that there is a lesson to be learnt from that by this Parliament. It is not necessarily the number of Bills that are put through in the last week of Parliament that is important. What is important in that they should be properly considered before they are presented to this House and should receive proper and adequate consideration while they are in the House. I am concerned about the Minister's statement that he is going to reconsider this legislation and bring it forward at a later stage on the basis that we have not fully considered what was in the original legislation. We fully understand the implications of the fact that these officials are not elected representatives. I might just reiterate some of the arguments that members of the Opposition used at that time. Mr Howe —I said `not paid officials'. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I understand that. We were concerned that a person was being given a privileged position, because exercising his duties he might have put himself in a situation which could have been potentially dangerous. I instance the case of an unpaid union official calling on a picket, where he could be subject to a certain amount of danger and injury, who would automatically be covered under the Act while fulfilling duties which were contrary to the public service. I believe that that has to be fully understood. I believe that the matter of the definition of an ordinary recess that we were arguing against arose because of an employee of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation who took a lunch break and, while resting in the park, was woken up with a bottle around his head. Any of the other professions and any of the other compensation Acts can encounter that type of thing. Again we say that the wording of the Act allowed a person to engage in a game of football or some sport of a similar nature during an ordinary recess, put himself deliberately into a danger zone, and be able to claim compensation for a recreational event. We understand the toing and froing from work in that situation but we believe that the legislation went too far in that direction. At the time I checked with the other States in connection with this legislation. As I understood it, unpaid elected union officials were not given that protection in any of the State Acts with perhaps one exception. The definition of an ordinary recess was absent from the other State Acts. It has been said that we have to pull this legislation into gear with the State Acts, but I believe in many ways we are already ahead of them. I believe that the unions were being put into a privileged position over and above that of their counterparts in other States and over and above that of other people in the work force. There is another danger. The Minister has to appreciate what the amendments will be when they come to him. I am not casting any reflection on the Public Service in this regard, but the Minister has to listen to the counsel of his departmental officers, people who are necessarily public employees and who could be covered by this Act. This Parliament is very rigid about pecuniary interests and about how we as parliamentarians react to legislation in this Parliament in terms of our pecuniary interests in something. I suggest with the utmost respect that, in a case like this where public servants necessarily have to advise the Minister, he has to look at the advice more carefully than he would in other respects, because it could be inferred that there are particular interests in the long term. We would be concerned if these amendments came back without the full consideration that we are prepared to give them in the Committee stage. The amendments are not all that we sought. We will be going along with one amendment because we cannot muster support in the Senate for our proposal. If there is a fault in the delivery of the services which this legislation intends to provide, there is no blame on the Opposition. The lesson to the Government is that it should not hide contentious issues in the bulk and multitude of other legislation to be amended. It is important that these matters be highlighted so that we can speak to them during debate on the relevant Bill without that affecting all the other legislation in the parcel. The Opposition accepts the amendments as proposed. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(12.01) —I could not quite follow the point made by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) with respect to pecuniary interests. I guess ultimately public servants may be amongst the beneficiaries of a great deal of Commonwealth legislation but there is a tradition in the Public Service of seeking objectivity in respect of these matters. Of course we can look at anything that the honourable member for Dawson wishes to raise more specifically. It is unfortunate that he made that sort of general comment about the Public Service, which of course, is responsible for many things from which its members may or may not benefit, but it does seek to preserve its objectivity. I am sure that the public servants advising me on this matter have been scrupulous in their search for objectivity in respect of what has been proposed in this legislation. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(12.02) —I did make the comment with respect and I said that of necessity the public servants would have to advise the Minister. I am not saying they were not objective but one must infer that the Minister himself must be very aware of the situation so that he can give this particular piece of legislation more scrutiny than he does others. I did make that comment with respect; I said that there were no alternatives but the Government had to be more alert to the situation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 23 May, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(12.04) —The legislation before the House corrects drafting errors and other loopholes in the Government's original superannuation legislation. It is instructive to look at the history of the Government's taxation proposals on superannuation to get some understanding of the need to correct this legislation. It is also interesting to note that this legislation is the responsibility of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the award winning Treasurer, the man who got the cart across the line in the taxation summit, the man known to his friends and colleagues as Ben Hur. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is on the record so far as superannuation taxation is concerned. Newspapers going back some years have quoted Mr Hawke as saying that there would be no rise in super tax. The Australian Financial Review of 18 April 1983 stated: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, has confirmed that there will be no increase in the tax rate for lump sum superannuation payments. There had been considerable speculation that the Government intended to increase the rate after deciding to restrict the level of superannuation payouts for federal politicians. A speech by the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, to the National Economic Summit, in which he had referred to the tax advantages enjoyed by superannuation, only seemed to fuel speculation. The Prime Minister then rushed in and said: `Don't worry, fellows; I am in control. This Government will do only what I want it to do and there will be no change in superannuation taxes'. Lo and behold, what happened? The Government announced that it would proceed to superannuation taxation changes. We should not really be surprised that the Prime Minister did not deliver on that promise because it was the same Prime Minister who in the lead-up to the 1984 election ran around the country saying that this Government had no intention of introducing a capital gains tax, that there would be no capital gains tax. He said: `We are not even considering it and, by the way, if we are, it will not affect the family home'. So what happened? In the lead-up to the taxation summit every option contained a capital gains tax. I guess that we should have known from his statement on superannuation that any statement he made on taxation was not worth the paper it was written on. The Government announced its intention to change superannuation taxation and to tax lump sums. It took it 13 months to draft the legislation and it was then brought into the House after a number of changes, backdowns, public humiliations and quite a bit of community dissent. As the legislation we are now considering proves, the Government got it wrong. The superanuation changes that it introduced directly or indirectly affected about 1.8 million Australians and their families. Of course this Government does not really understand the impact of that sort of change. That may have been the figure in 1983-84 but I have asked the Parliamentary Library to take out for me figures on the number of males and females over the age of 60 and 65 years who may be involved in superannuation and pension payments in forthcoming years. That figure of 1.8 million Australians rises to 4.152 million Australians by the year 2021. If we look progressively through the figures we see that in 1991 the figure will be 2.304 million; in 1996, 2.489 million; in 2001, 2.647 million; in 2011, 3.251 million; and, in 2016, 3.696 million Australians will be directly affected by this legislation. Every one of those Australians is pleased that the coalition parties have pledged to repeal this legislation on return to government. Of course our return to government is inevitable and will occur at the next election. The Australian Labor Party would have us believe that its lump sum superannuation tax is a tax on the wealthy, a tax on the tall poppies, a tax on the millionaires who exploit the superannuation system for their own benefit. That is not true. The reality is that 90 per cent of lump sum superannuation payments are for amounts of less than $30,000. Of course the Australian Council of Trade Unions and certain members of the right wing of the ALP understand this. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people who are affected by this tax are people concerned about their future and about the future of their families, who are concerned with their security upon retirement. An amount of $30,000 is not the sort of superannuation that millionaires are concerned about; it is the sort of superannuation about which the average Australian is worried. What does this Government propose to do? It proposes to tax it. These people planning what to do with their $30,000 on retirement were not planning on taking over public companies; they were planning on paying off their mortgages, perhaps buying a new car to last them through their retirement or maybe taking a world trip. Take the situation of a loyal member of the trade union movement who has worked all his life and planned for his $30,000 lump sum retirement payment. All of a sudden his hero, the folk hero of the Australian public who says to him that there will be no change to the taxation laws, has his Government introduce a lump sum superannuation tax. So this man who has been working hard for 40 years, paying his superannuation payments, planning on a happy retirement and perhaps planning to take his wife on a world trip, their first time overseas, is taxed to the extent that he either pays an exorbitant amount and makes the lump sum useless for his retirement purposes or is forced to put it into an annuity. That raises the strange situation in which the Australian Labor Party, a democratic socialist party, has formed an unholy alliance not only to eliminate the ability of the average Australian to accumulate capital but also to concentrate that capital that has accumulated into the hands of a relatively small group of institutions. Not many people have thought through seriously the implications of the Labor Party's superannuation tax, but the real impact is that within one generation it will eliminate the ability of the average Australian to accumulate a modest amount of capital. Under the Labor Party's proposal one could have superannuation that pays a lump sum, but the rate of tax payable on it when it is collected would mean that it is not viable even to consider taking a lump sum. One would be forced to put the lump sum into some sort of institution which pays an annuity. There are two types of annuities, either for a fixed term or for life. Of course, when one dies that is the end of the annuity. The lump sum arrangement gave people a lot more flexibility and gave the Australian capital market a much better structure. We had a situation where thousands of Australians-the figures indicate up to 1.8 million Australians-had the capacity to accumulate a modest amount of capital. Of course, on their retirement that capital was theirs to control and do with what they wanted. Most of them took the opportunity to pay off their mortgage, buy a new car, take a world trip, lend it to their families, buy a holiday home for their retirement, move from the capital city or wherever they had been working, or invest it to provide a modest income for their retirement. Under this proposal that source of capital for the Australian capital market and that sort of investment for the future of Australia would be gone, wiped out. The capital would be transferred into the hands of a relatively small number of large institutions. We would see a further concentration of capital into the hands of predominantly multinational operations. This Government, being very much the puppet of the trade union movement, has listed trade unions amongst the list of approved institutions for deposits under its annuity scheme. That is a curious thing. The other institutions-banks and building societies-listed for approved deposits all have some form of prudential control on them. They are controlled either by the Federal Government or a State government. Where is the prudential control, limits, restrictions and reporting requirement on the trade union movement's superannuation deposit scheme? There is absolutely no requirement on it, no public accountability, no attempt at all to prevent manipulation of those deposit schemes by trade unions. That indicates again the control the trade union movement has on this Government. I believe that it is instructive to look at the debate that took place on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984 when it was introduced into the House. I quote from comments made by my colleague the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the shadow Treasurer and soon to be the Treasurer in the next Peacock-Sinclair Government. This Bill is now correcting and fixing the flows and inadequacies of the previous Bill. In speaking during the second reading debate on that Bill, he said: The legislation now before the Parliament is the most complicated taxation Bill that this Government has presented. The explanatory memorandum alone exceeds 120 pages. The Bill was introduced only last week, after more than 12 months of preparation-12 months of backing and filling, three back-downs, several more reversals and false leads as to the final shape of the legislation. After all of that, we finally get the Bill, and what does the Government do? It invites this Parliament to pass the Bill without so much as a week's opportunity to look at it. I say firstly to the Government that it really is treating the process of serious legislative examination with total contempt to invite the Parliament to take a serious look at a Bill of this magnitude and complexity in such a short time. Of course, we now see the consequences of that. The Government took over 12 months to draft the Bill, rushed it through the Parliament in a week, without proper opportunity for debate and scrutiny and would not accept amendments to it. What do we have now? We see that the Treasurer, who must be humiliated-I note that he is not shepherding personally this legislation through the Parliament-has been forced to bring in a Bill which amends, corrects and plugs loop- holes. This is the greatest Treasurer Australia has ever had. He ought to give back the medal. He cannot even bring legislation into the House that does not require fixing later. He had 12 months to draft the legislation. The explanatory memorandum was 120 pages long. Unfortunately, I have not had time to go back through that explanatory memorandum to see exactly whether it was accurate. Maybe even the memorandum was wrong. Unfortunately that sort of situation is typical of this Treasurer. As I have said, the coalition parties are opposed totally to these superannuation changes from a philosophical point of view. We believe it is right to encourage Australians to provide for their retirement. We believe it is right for them to have the opportunity to provide a capital base from which they can be supported in their retirement. If this Government had any common sense, it would realise that with the aging of the Australian population we would be much better off to encourage Australians to be independent financially, rather than relying for support in their old age on the pension and the tax payments of those Australians who are still working. We have a government which cannot see common sense. We have a government which is blinded by ideological approaches to this, which keeps talking about tall poppies and millionaires with their snouts in the trough, and ignores the fact that 90 per cent of the lump sum payments are less than $30,000. This Government should take a long, hard look at the electoral consequences of this legislation. Perhaps, rather than fixing the loopholes and making some other changes around the edges, it would be better to repeal the whole legislation. The simple fact of the matter is that this Government does not know where it is going on tax. The reality is that we had the tax summit, which arose because the Prime Minister, under pressure over capital taxation during an election campaign, talking on talk back radio in Perth, was confronted by an idea put to him by a disc jockey that perhaps he should run a tax summit. He now uses the streaker's defence: `It seemed like a good idea at the time'. From December 1984 we had the build-up to the tax summit. Right throughout the year the Prime Minister kept ducking and weaving on questions of taxation, by saying: `No comment. We are not going to do anything. We are going to have the tax summit'. During the election campaign, he kept saying: `No capital taxes; we are not contemplating capital taxes. If we are, there will be not a tax on the family home'. What happened? When we came to this famous tax summit, this absolute fiasco, the situation arose where every option proposed by this Government contained a capital tax. We had a situation where only this week in this Parliament the Treasurer, who stood in this place and spoke at the tax summit, introduced half a Budget. To my mind, it is absolutely ludicrous to bring into this place a Budget with no statement on taxation policy. The country does not know where it is going. We do not know what is this Government's approach to tax. I guess we do not know what is this Government's approach to wages policy, either. It has not yet asked Simon Crean and Bill Kelty. Mr McGauran —Yes, we do-capitulation to the ACTU. Mr BLUNT —I guess it is capitulation, but I was being a bit soft on it. Let it have a few more weeks of toing and froing before it capitulates publicly. Mr Tuckey —You mean, before it gets the message? Mr BLUNT —I think it has got the message, but I think it is trying to save a bit of political face. The reality is that everything under the sun is discounted except wages. I just do not understand a government with that sort of approach. It is ludicrous to bring into this place a Budget that has no statement of the Government's taxation policy. Why did that happen? Because the Treasurer, Ben Hur, could not get any agreement out of Cabinet, Caucus, the Labor Party or, more importantly, the ACTU. He is probably now having a meeting in a motel room with the Prime Minister, trying to work out what sort of deal they can do to bring in a taxation policy. I guess that in September, if they can afford to continue to pay the rent on the motel room, we will have a tax policy. I do not know what sort of tax policy it will be, but I can tell honourable members a few things. It probably will have capital gains taxes in it and, if the left wing gets its way, it probably will have a wealth tax. Undoubtedly it will have some sort of death duties and probably will have de facto death duties. They will not be called death duties; they might be called an inheritance tax. That is a nice bit of semantics. Of course, we could duck the issue completely and just have capital gains tax on the basis that when one does one is assumed to have sold the asset and that can be taxed also. That is the sort of sleight of hand that this Government indulges in from time to time. Then of course, we do not know the Government's approach to other taxes. The Treasurer spent months campaigning around the country in the lead-up to the tax summit telling people that we had to have a broadly-based consumption tax. He said that option C was the way to go. I hate to quote the Treasurer inaccurately; so I will just say that this is the general import of what he said at the time, but he gave the impression that if option C was not adopted there would not really be much point in people like him continuing to take an interest in the nation's affairs. The clear implication of that was that the Treasurer, if he did not get his way on tax, was going to resign. But I distinctly remember his being here yesterday in the House talking about his half Budget. I guess that is just another example of the fact that the Treasurer follows the Prime Minister's line on these things-that is, anything one says can be changed the next day and the people of Australia really cannot be expected to rely on one's statements because they change with the wind. The Government had to capitulate and acknowledge that its legislation-12 months of preparation-was inadequate. We have a situation in which the Government took options A, B and C to the tax summit but the Australian Council of Trade Unions said `no way, never; we will not have any of those.' Then we had a situation where the Treasurer, in trying to salvage some sort of political face out of the tax summit, announced that there would be a Cabinet sub-committee for developing tax policy. That committee would look at some sort of consumption tax-perhaps a broadening of the existing wholesale taxes. There was also to be a services tax. What happened there? After weeks of speculation the Treasurer tried, without much success, to announce that consumption taxes had been dumped also. I do not know where we are on tax policy. We have no indication of where this Government is going. It would not know in which direction it was going. The ACTU for ideological reasons-perhaps it is concerned to keep the non-existent factions, which do not meet any more, in line-is more motivated by an ideological approach to tax than anything else. Have honourable members ever heard anything more ridiculous than the ACTU's proposal to tax fringe benefits in the hands of the employer? That is a ridiculous situation made only more ridiculous by the statement in relation to fringe benefits paid to public sector employees. It was said that of course the Government would pay the tax on behalf of public sector employees. That is absolutely ridiculous. A private sector employer has to find the extra dollars to pay the tax on any fringe benefit that is available to an employee. The public sector employee will have his tax paid by the Government, but that tax is not cash, it is not hard dollars, it is not real money-it is a bookkeeping entry. The Government will simply do a bookkeeping entry in relation to tax on fringe benefits paid to public sector employees. That is the sort of financial logic that this Government employs. No wonder it thinks that it is all right to come into this place with half a Budget with no tax policy in it; half a Budget with a wage policy which has not quite been cleared with the ACTU; half a Budget which has supposedly no effective tax increases in it but which proposes a 13 per cent increase in PAYE collections; half a Budget which will see thousands of Australians caught by what is known euphemistically as `bracket creep'. What bracket creep means is that the tax rate of the average secretary and the average manager in private enterprise will go into the top marginal tax bracket. No wonder there is no incentive. No wonder it is hard to get people in Australia to work overtime. No wonder this country's living standards are slipping. No wonder our productivity is dropping. This Government will not address the fundamental issue which is necessary for getting the economy back on the rails-that is, providing an incentive for Australians to work, to earn an extra dollar and to put that dollar to work on their behalf and on behalf of the country. I wonder what sort of future we have. The best thing this Government could do would be to call an early election, allow the Australian people to toss them out and get back to some fiscal responsibility in this country. The situation exists where the Government has introduced a Bill to fix an inadequate and ill-conceived piece of legislation-legislation which the Liberal and National parties have pledged to repeal on return to office, legislation which is disadvantaging thousands of Australians and distorting our capital markets. It is classic socialist legislation. Talking about socialism, in the 1983 election campaign Malcolm Fraser said that the best place for people's money under a Labor government would be under the bed. Everybody laughed at him, but I can tell the House one thing-the worst place for money under a Labor government is in a superannuation fund. This is the sort of legislation that the Prime Minister promised would never come into this Parliament. He said that there would be no changes to the taxation arrangements on lump sum superannuation. So much for the Prime Minister's word. So much for the Prime Minister's word on just about anything because, quite frankly, it changes with the wind. Unfortunately, when the Prime Minister was President of the ACTU he was in a situation where he could quote statistics with impunity and bully the media into not responding. These days when he speaks in this House, thank goodness we have Hansard which is in a position to take down the Prime Minister's words so that they can be recorded and shown to the Australian people. We can show the people that the Prime Minister's word is likely to change, that his intentions on one day are not his intentions on another day, that his intentions are those given to him by the ACTU and that when it changes its mind, the Prime Minister changes his mind. Unfortunately, we now have a situation in Australia where we have, as my collleague the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) said the other day, the only Prime Minister in Australia's history whose promises have a `use by' date on them. If one does not get them implemented by a certain time and implemented firmly, his intentions change. I wonder what sort of future we have in this country with a Prime Minister who takes a look at the opinion polls and is concerned to boost his own popularity even at the expense of the prudent management of the economy. It is our intention on return to government to repeal this entire legislation. On the basis of that intention, although the Opposition does not support the legislation that this Bill seeks to amend, we will not oppose it. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(12.27) —I wish to illustrate briefly that the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1985 is not the draconian legislation that the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) claims. I do not have to go very far back in history to find the sort of legislative crutches that the previous Government implemented in order to try to remedy our complex income tax system. One of the features of this Bill is to eliminate `cherry-picker' schemes. The previous speaker seemed to express so little interest in superannuation that he stopped talking about it five minutes after he started his speech. Under the `cherry-picker' schemes which operated prior to the 1984 legislation, an employer made a maximum contribution to superannuation benefits for his employees, including the proprietor himself or herself as a director. This meant that the tax deduction for the contribution was obtained and very often the employer in this situation did not tell the employees about the superannuation scheme. Then the employer made sure that the employees were no longer working for the firm by the time the benefits were payable. For example, he often sacked them in time or he may have known that the term of employment was limited and dated the application of the benefits to after the end of the employment period. Then, these benefits which had been forfeited by the employees and which had mounted up in the funds were eventually available to the proprietor without tax. Here we have a proprietor who has already received tax cuts for contributions, a proprietor who has already received tax-free investment income, who has possibly sacked the unwitting worker and at the end of it all winds up the fund, keeps the money and pays no tax on it. So the money that the proprietor has received as income from sales, for example, has never been taxed and has even been used to gain tax deductions. There are all sorts of excuses for this sort of activity, none of which placates the pay as you earn taxpayers, who resent the fact that few people earning over $50,000 a year pay any tax at all, who resent the fact that other people are able to use various strategies and, even when they are found out, are able to move to another tax avoidance measure with impunity. Since the passing of the legislation in April 1984 and the implementation of the legislation back to 7 December 1983, with the concurrence of the Senate, there have been attempts to call the windfall to the proprietor a termination payment. This would mean that it is taxed at 5 per cent as a lump sum on termination of employment. There is no doubt that our income tax system has made more liars among the Australian people than fishing and golf put together. On the other hand the income tax system is the fairest tax if it can be made to work. The essence of fairness in today's world is for correcting legislation to be made retrospective. If the Government's wish had been accepted by the Senate, the legislation would have been backdated to 1977. As it is, the Senate accepted backdating to December 1983, and so we have the legislation applying from that date. This amendment, as with all amendments to income tax legislation, is necessary to stop the type of activity about which I have been talking, and I believe that the Government has introduced the legislation- Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, is this legislation aimed at stopping the cherry picking scheme that the honourable member has just been describing to the House? He has said so. The House could be quite confused if that is so, but I do not think that it is. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr SNOW —The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) did not intervene when the honourable member for Richmond was talking about all sorts of matters, including consumption tax. This legislation is to amend the legislation which was designed in 1984 to deal with cherry picking schemes. I do not intend to speak at length on the legislation. I believe that it is a genuine attempt by the Government to ensure that the taxation system is fair and applies to those who ought to be liable. Our taxation system will not work unless it is properly represented in this Parliament, and this Government is doing just that. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may ask the Minister at the table, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), to tell us whether this legislation relates to the cherry picking scheme, or whether it relates to amendments to superannuation matters. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(12.33) —The amendments we are debating to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill are amendments to the notorious and obnoxious lump sum tax on superannuation payments. Members of the Government seem unaware of how concerned the community is about these provisions. Government members seem absolutely unconcerned about what they are doing to retirees and those who are about to retire. There is no doubt in my mind why Government members do not want to debate this legislation and why they prefer to talk about other aspects of superannuation and not deal with the real substance of this legislation. I refer the House to the headlines which appeared following the introduction of this legislation. A headline in the Australian Financial Review of 20 July 1984 read: `Lump sum quagmire'. A headline in the Daily Telegraph of 17 July 1984 referred to `The sin of silence' in regard to the lump sum tax. I refer the House to the commitment given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions at the first economic summit that there would be no lump sum tax on superannuation. Then, as is typical of this Government, we saw the retraction of that commitment. I wonder what part of all that the Government says one can be assured will be really carried out in the precise detail with which the Government enunciates these matters. I have with me a great bundle of papers from complaining retirees and beneficiaries of superannuation about what the Government has done to superannuation. I guess that the most spectacular is that which relates to my friend the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred). The leader in the Australian of Monday, 20 May 1983 stated: `Bruce results shows superannuation tax should be deferred'. There is the real political bite on what the Government has done to retirees, to those who have saved and set aside amounts of money coming into their account following their regular payments as employees, money set aside for their retirement. We have the comments of Mr Eric Risstrom, of the Australian Taxpayers Association, on 11 September 1984, when he said: Retirement tax law must be simplified. Over a long period, we have had comments from individuals and respected groups against the imposition of a lump sum tax, and then, following its introduction, headlines saying that it is a massive mess. A headline in the Australian of 3 September 1984 read: New lump sum tax `a gargantuan mess'. That was a quotation from Mr Roger Sawkins, of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, following the introduction of that legislation. There have been comments about the so-called L form, the tax payment guide that was supposed to be completed by people eligible for a termination payment-as it is called in Treasury language-containing some of the details that are sought by that form in order for retirees to be taxed. Now, of course, we see some changes to the legislation which purport to bring it more in line with government policy and to amend some of the anomalies in the original legislation. The Government is entitled to do that. The Opposition is supporting an amendment to the second reading motion which says that whilst we shall not deny the second reading of the legislation, we shall be rescinding it immediately on our return to government because we think that the way in which the Government is treating retirees is grossly improper. Let us just add up some of the facts. We have had lump sum taxes and superannuation tax, followed by an assets test, and now, down the line, an imputed capital gains tax on death. Goodness gracious! What will people be able to save and put aside for the future? Mr Tim Fischer —Nothing. Mr CADMAN —Nothing will be sacrosanct. Under the assets test the Government is getting into people's life insurance policies. Those policies are being valued. People are being told: `You can resolve this matter if you surrender your life assurance policy'. They are being told to cash in that benefit, set aside by way of life insurance, set aside through many years' premiums, paid year after year; but within 10 years of their retirement, or at the point of retirement when they are eligible for the pension, they are told to cash in their life insurance. The Government has no regard for people's efforts over their lifetime in seeking to be self-supporting. I know that many Government members are reasonable people and do not really believe that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and his Department understand people's needs and the conditions under which normal Australians live. The Treasurer is too remote from them. I say to those honourable members opposite: For goodness sake, why do you not return to a reasonable policy for retirees? All that Government members are doing by these measures is taxing people for relatively small amounts of money, causing massive dislocation and disruption, and causing trauma to individuals. We have seen two such measures put in place by this Government. The first is the lump sum tax on superannuation, which is a dreadful thing to apply to individuals in retirement or people who are about to retire. We had the assets test and all of its anomalies and now we have the tax package of September, October or November. Honourable members may pick their date as the Treasurer has not indicated when he is going to bring down a tax package. But when he does I predict a capital gains tax, which will have a certain effect on individuals. Let us consider an individual who has worked and saved. He will be taxed on his lump sum superannuation payment when he retires and suffer a capital gains tax on his assets when he departs this earth as well as having to undergo an assets test when he seeks to live on the pension. That is deplorable. No wonder grandparents are telling their grandchildren-I have heard them say this and I find it distressing-not to prepare for their future. They say: `The Government will look after you on retirement because you will be able to get the pension. Don't save anything, don't look after yourselves and don't make preparations for the future.' They are saying that as a result of this Government's action. I can understand the concern of honourable members opposite and the disbelief they have expressed in the chamber this morning that any government could take such action, yet they must acknowledge that it is their Government which has taken it. On 21 January 1985, the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, the honourable member for Adelaide, Mr Chris Hurford, announced that the Government was to correct drafting errors which had become apparent in the recently amended income tax law relating to lump sum termination payments. The legislation we have before us today follows that through. It has taken a long time for the legislation to hit the deck but we have it today and it is in line with government policy. Members of the Opposition are telling the Government, the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer that their policies are wrong and unconscionable in the way in which they are being applied to retirees. It is the Opposition's intention to ensure that they will be reversed on our election. We will withdraw these measures which have been announced and put into action by the Government. I refer briefly to the proposals under the Option A tax package which includes what is termed a moderate capital gains tax. That moderate capital gains tax further seeks to assess savings on death. There is no realisation of a benefit by the individual because he is deceased, and no realisation from the beneficiaries of the will because they have not sold the commodity, yet the capital has an imputed value which is realised at point of death. There is no doubt that it is a death duty. That, linked with the taxation on lump sum superannuation and the assets test, is a deplorable approach to retirees. This nation needs to take an alternative view and opposing action to that. We should be seeking to encourage people, with tax incentives, to prepare for their retirement so that the taxpayers will not be asked in successive Budgets-in this Budget they have been asked to provide a very large amount-to carry those retirees and to contribute more and more to prop up those individuals from whom the Government is taking incentives. Let us reverse the process and provide the incentive such as superannuation at the beginning of a person's working life, so that funds will be set aside over a period of time and then realised on retirement in the appropriate way. That is the way in which the Government can make a real impact on the level of taxation being raised in Australia. The tax on lump sum superannuation payments is frankly denying opportunity to individuals. The Government is not achieving the predicted results by this process. The legislation, when first drafted, was faulty, and acknowledged as faulty, and it took some 12 months to rectify those processes even though earlier notification was given. I find it surprising- Mr Tuckey —No wonder, if the Caucus thought it was the cherry picker scheme. Mr CADMAN —Yes. My friend has said that even Government members have been confused today about what we are debating. The fact remains that this is a terrible tax which will be repealed by the Opposition when we achieve government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! It being approximately 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr EWEN CAMERON(Indi)(12.45) —I would like to take this opportunity to make a few observations on what I call the Australian work ethic. There are several areas in today's Australian way of life which worry me very much. I refer to the attitude adopted or accepted towards work, the workplace, leisure, the role of the trade union movement and the role of government. Australian workers-by `workers' I mean all those who are paid to do a job of work-hold a unique position throughout the world. The arbitration system and the trade union movement, often assisted by government, have developed a work ethic rarely, if ever, experienced in other countries. The continual thrust by the trade union movement for shorter working hours with a parallel thrust for higher wages has been with us in Australia since the beginning of the trade union movement. There is nothing unusual about this, taking into account the normal human desires in these matters. The advent of crippling penalty rates over and above normal wages has injected a new concept into the work force. For many, the penalty rate income is the all important part of the job. The introduction of a 17.5 per cent loading on holiday pay to compensate for the loss of penalty rates while the worker is on holidays is just another of the unique working conditions the Australian work force receives. Four weeks annual leave and, in some awards, even more is another Australian peculiarity. One might say that Australian workers, through the support of the arbitration system and the trade union movement, have gone a long way towards a workers' Utopia. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Australia is heading for a disastrous economic situation if we do not take stock and act to correct the problem areas I have already referred to. Australian exports by both primary and secondary industry have been or are being rapidly priced out of the world markets. Within Australia competition is rapidly increasing between Australian produced and manufactured goods and imports. More and more protection is being requested and provided by government to keep Australian goods in the local market place. I believe that a time of crisis has arrived requiring drastic measures. In some ways, it could be compared to the crisis which would arise out of the threat of imminent invasion by some unfriendly power. Unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, is probably the greatest running sore on the conscience of Australia today. I believe that a massive reduction in unemployment could be brought about by a radical change of attitude throughout the Australian community towards the work ethic. We must firstly return to the old-fashioned belief that profits are a very necessary ingredient in a successful, free enterprise economy. No business, large or small, will maintain and increase employment without economic viability, which, of course, is dependent on profitability. The potential for increased employment throughout Australia is absolutely enormous. There are approximately 750,000 business enterprises throughout Australia; 99 per cent employ less than 100 people; 93 per cent employ less than 10 people. This means that there are approximately 697,000 small businesses employing less than 10 people, mainly small family firms and family enterprises, throughout Australia. A very great many of these small businesses are in rural areas and, of course, include the family farm. If each of these 697,000 small businesses were to employ one more person, unemployment would cease to exist. This, of course, is an absolute fantasy, but it points out the direction in which we must travel to tackle unemployment. It is time for the Government, the trade union movement and the arbitration system to make radical changes in Australia's industrial relations system, aimed at a determined attack on this crisis situation. I suggest that the following ideas could be a basis on which to build the attack: Wages for those working in any enterprise employing 50 or less people could be negotiated. Employment contracts could be entered into following mutual agreement between the employer and employee. These contracts, of course, would be subject to statutory provisions relating to such matters as safety and health. The employer would naturally take into account the ability of his enterprise to pay while the employee would negotiate without the threat of chronic unemployment. This would be the situation once small business picks up the unemployment slack. There would be a minimum wage set by the arbitration courts which would be the base from which the employee would negotiate. Holidays would be reduced to two weeks annually. Holiday loadings of 17.5 per cent would be abolished. Working hours would be determined by the negotiated agreement between employer and employee and written into the contract. Penalty rates would virtually be eliminated and the overtime worked could be taken up by others in the unemployed work force. These are quite radical suggestions and will not be acceptable to the present Government or leaders in the trade union movement. But I put them forward as it is high time that more and more people spoke up against the mad rush towards economic chaos brought about by our present work ethic. The present industrial confrontation at the Mudginberri abattoir near Darwin is a classic example of the present Australian work ethic in action. The Mudginberri abattoir can be classified as a small family business operating in the large and very competitive meat industry. The owners of the abattoir entered into a negotiated employment agreement which was beneficial to both employer and employee. This agreement was quite legal under an award created by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to cover the meat industry in the Northern Territory. The agreement resulted in startling increases in production and reductions in the cost of production. The cost of slaughtering and processing a beast has been reduced to less than a quarter of the cost at another Northern Territory meat works at Katherine which continues to work under the existing Australia-wide union award. The Mudginberri employees have gained a large rise in their weekly pay and expressed great satisfaction with the arrangement. Unfortunately the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union has seen fit to expel the Mudginberri workers from the union. It is quite obvious that there is no room in that union for members prepared to free themselves from restrictive practices which now exist under the union award. These people are not only improving their own lot but are assisting to make their place of work more profitable and thus enable potential for expansion, more employment and certainly the opportunity for greater permanence in an often difficult industry. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has joined forces with the AMIEU in total opposition to the agreement and the AMIEU has established an illegal picket on the meatworks. Commonwealth meat inspectors have refused to cross the picket line, which has brought production to a standstill, as Mudginberri is an export meatworks and it is a requirement for its product to be inspected by these people prior to export. The Federal Government has refused to take action as it may lead to a confrontation with the ACTU. If the Hawke Government allows the Mudginberri experiment to be crushed it will show that it is not prepared to meet a challenge which must be overcome if Australia is ever to recover its initiative and its prosperity. The whole exercise serves to point up the very problems I have been talking about. It is essential that our work ethic change course right now-not next month, not next year, but right now-with the Mudginberri cause leading the way. There is no argument that our industrial relations system needs a shake-up. We must seek greater flexibility. We should provide the means whereby individual firms and their employees can go outside the existing arbitration system if they wish to do so. The time has come when Australia must face up to the realities of the harsh international environment in which we live. We can no longer afford the luxury of an industrial relations system that pays insufficient regard to the realities of the international and domestic market place. Australia's work ethic must change right now. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(12.55) —In my short time here this this afternoon I would just like to bring to the attention of this House and the Australian people the speech by the Premier of Queensland as recently as yesterday relating to the sugar industry. I will refer to excerpts from that speech later. As all honourable members know, Queensland's great sugar industry is now facing its gravest crisis. World markets have collapsed to the point where sugar which sold at US28c per lb in 1980 now sells for around US3c per lb. There is at this stage a gross oversupply on world markets and the European Economic Community countries and other countries continue to provide their industries with high subsidies. In response to this crisis, and after an 18-month delay brought about by the Queensland Government, a sugar industry working party was established in May this year. The 100-day commitee, as it has become known, was made up of representatives of the industry and both State and Federal government representatives. The report of the sugar industry working party suggested wide-ranging reforms to the structure of the industry and hasty government financial assistance. I do not intend to go into the recommendations of that report at this stage, but I would like to commend the Hawke Labor Government for its immediate response to that report and the recommendations. Whilst not agreeing with various recommendations in the Savage sugar industry working party report, various sections of the industry have already indicated their willingness to begin immediate negotiations and discussions with the Queensland and Commonwealth governments so that aid can be given to the industry at the earliest possible time. However, the Queensland Government and, in particular, the Premier have refused to assist the Federal Government and the industry in this matter. It is my belief that the Queensland Government has both a moral and historical duty-I repeat, duty-to assist the Queensland sugar industry. There are many reasons why the Queensland Government has this obligation: Firstly, the industry is totally under the control of Queensland legislation-legislation which regulates the growing of sugar cane, the manufacture of cane sugar, the pricing mechanisms, in relation to the payment both of cane farmers and millers, and the marketing of the product. For some 60 years now it has been made clear by successive Queensland governments that the Commonwealth Government should not get involved in the running of the industry. In fact, in the 1960s the Federal Government heralded a warning to the State Government about overproduction. The then Premier of the State, the late Sir Francis Nicklin, told the Commonwealth Government to stay out of the sugar industry and that the Queensland Government was prepared to go it alone without the assistance of the Federal Government if necessary. In June 1983, the then Queensland Primary Industries Minister, Mr Ahern, indicated, when announcing a $10m loan from the Queensland Government to the industry, that he was seeking a similar contribution, that is, on a dollar for dollar basis, from the Federal Government; and as late as October last year, when the Federal Government made available $5.5m in assistance to the cane growers, it was matched on a dollar for dollar basis by the State Government. In fact, as late as November 1984, the Premier of Queensland telexed the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) seeking further assistance on the basis that the assistance would be side by side with State assistance. It is now mere rhetoric that the Premier calls upon the Federal Government to totally aid the ailing industry. In his speech to the Queensland Parliament yesterday the Premier said: But the Federal Government must accept the financial obligations of price support just as it did for the steel and car industries when they were in trouble. Of course, what the Premier has tried to do is introduce a new dimension into this sad and sorry debate. For the benefit of the Premier of Queensland, as a result of his mumblings in the Queensland Parliament yesterday, I have telexed him today to outline to him the main thrust of both the steel and car plans. There is no parallel, there is no comparison, between the steel and car plans and the assistance to the sugar industry. In fact, in my telex to the Premier I indicated that in the unlikely event of his having made an honest mistake I would outline details of those plans to him, which might assist him in not introducing this new dimension, this red herring, into the debate on sugar assistance in the future. In fact it should be placed on record that the main thrust of the Commonwealth steel industry plan was a commitment by three parties: The unions, the Government and the company. The company committed itself to investing $800m in that plan over a five-year period for improved technology. The unions, in their part in that agreement, agreed to certain work practices, dispute settling procedures and production improvements, and no wage increases above and beyond the accord. In return for that, and conditional upon that being met, the Government offered financial support by way of a bounty on certain steel products. Let us turn to the car plan. The thrust of the car plan was for greater efficiency and cheaper cars and the provision of opportunity for the industry to restructure and modernise. Principal features were: To get the number of models from 13 to six; to give $150m for Australian design and research; to reduce production; to provide help with labour programs; and to establish an automotive industry authority to oversee the restructuring process. But the whole thrust of the Government's car plan was towards a rationalised, restructured and more equitable industry. Those two plans bear no resemblance at all to the industry assistance sought by the sugar industry. In fact, there is very little doubt that those opposite are aware of and support a bilateral or bipartisan approach to this future industry assistance. The shadow spokesman on primary industries, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), has said in this House that it is something that should be approached not only by the Federal Government and the industry but by the Federal and State governments and industry. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) in this place is on record as saying: Our cane-growers and millers and those whole communities dependent on sugar, with governments, can then determine permanent solutions to the industry's problems without premature and heartbreaking bankruptcies and financial collapse. Immediately after the election-- he was talking prior to the election of late last year-- we will begin talks with all sections of the industry and the Queensland Government on the progress of the sugar industry review and the prospects of a new international sugar agreement. It is clear-and the record spells it out-that those opposite are aware of the obligation of the Queensland Government in future assistance to the sugar industry. I appeal to those opposite and to those in the National Party-and I am aware that there are a number of National Party back benchers in Queensland who are disgusted with the conduct of the Premier, who has gagged his Primary Industries Minister from saying any- thing-to try to talk some sanity to the Premier, although I think that time has passed. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(1.04) —Today I wish to raise the serious question of identification-ID-cards. I refer to the proposal, outlined in the Draft White Paper on Reform of the Australian Taxation System of June 1985, to introduce a national identification system to improve the level of voluntary compliance and assist in reducing evasion in both the taxation and social security systems. The White Paper estimates potential revenue, at yield, of some $800m in the fifth year of operation of such a scheme, but emphasises that such an estimate is highly tentative and would need to be refined as the precise details of measures were decided. The Government has responded with enthusiasm to this proposal emanating from the Public Service and has appointed my old adversary the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett)-I am delighted to see that he is in the chamber-to oversee the introduction of such a scheme. What an appropriate appointment! The Minister for Health, having left his footprints over the sick and elderly of Australia, now has the job of fingerprinting everyone else. The Minister claims to have been delighted by the apparent public approval of the proposal. The polls tell us that 75 per cent of the people support the idea. I think that is because they have been told that $800m will be recovered in lost taxes or improper social security payments if we all have ID cards and, as a result, we will pay less tax-`I am from the Government. I am here to help you. Just slip your head into this noose and I will relieve the pressure on your feet'. This proposal must be killed stone dead. Quite apart from the evidence from around the world that the system simply would not achieve this stated result, it would put into the hands of bureaucrats and public and private organisations a power over individuals that cannot be tolerated in a free society. ID cards are a major step towards a single, national computerised dossier on each individual citizen that could be used by a variety of bodies or agencies for a wide variety of purposes, without the consent of the individual concerned. Decisions vitally affecting individuals could be made on the basis of information collected over a long period. The information could be dated; it could be inaccurate; it could be misleading; it could be out of context; it would most often have been collected for a purpose other than that for which it was being used. For example, youthful misdemeanours or irrelevant episodes of bad health could jeopardise a person's current position or even livelihood, without any possibility of redress. There need be no record that such irrelevant information influenced current decisions. The decision-maker could deny that such information was taken into account. My experience in dealing with large organisations, public or private, is that, once a mistake has been made, there is a tendency for those in the organisation concerned to become defensive and to cover up. Such considerations can easily outweigh what should be the prime concern-justice for the individual. Let me say deliberately, as a former Minister of the Crown with some detailed knowledge of the internal operations of departments and instrumentalities, that I do not trust the system as a whole to act justly in relation to individuals. I know of too many cases where individuals have been unjustly treated to be prepared to surrender more power to the system. The safeguards are simply insufficient. Apologists for ID cards acknowledge that privacy is an issue. They say that safeguards would be written into the system to ensure that the balance between the rights to privacy on the one hand and the rights of the community to have their money protected on the other is maintained. I regard such assurances as worthless. No government can give a guarantee that binds succeeding governments. Promises today are forgotten tomorrow. Powerful forces are at work. Human experience tells us that those responsible for the system will seek constantly to extend the coverage and uses of the system over time. Ninety-five per cent of cabinet submissions I saw during my time as a Minister called for extensions of the power and influence of the bureaucracy and, as a necessary consequence, for the progressive reduction of individual choice or personal liberty. I see no reason why this would not apply to a national identification system. Its very existence would tempt the bureaucratic mind to devise and recommend extensions to its use and, over time, further encroachment of privacy would inevitably occur. Apologists for the system also say that we already have a variety of identification systems for tax, for social security, for credit and for medical insurance and that an ID system would merely tidy what is already there. I say that we have already gone too far with the Medicare system of nationalised medical insurance. I regard the centralised computerisation of personal medical records as extremely dangerous. We were assured when the system was introduced that there were safeguards, yet there has already been a leak of information on doctors' payments. The very Minister who gave us the assurances about Medicare is in charge of the introduction of ID cards. Many people, in response to these arguments, say: `I have nothing to hide. I do not care what people know about me if it stops other people cheating'. This is what I call the honest German syndrome. It is the kind of thinking that enabled Hitler to set up systems that led to slavery and destruction. In any case, on reflection, everyone has things that they would not want known about themselves and eventually they would be caught up in the net. Finally, would such a system achieve the stated objective? This is only a secondary question, as the earlier question of privacy and individual liberty is the one of overwhelming importance and is sufficient in itself as an argument for the proposal to be abandoned. However, would the system work in the sense that it would stop cheating? It is a matter of degree. The United States social security number system, introduced in 1936 and extended into many areas since, has brought about the maximum invasion of privacy with minimum effect on cheating. Private sources as well as public sources are able to go to that sytem for information. I am told that any system relying on primary information such as birth certificates, which themselves can be obtained fraudulently, is of little value. Systems which require fingerprinting and photography would have a higher success rate but are not thief proof. And which Australian government is going to require every citizen to be fingerprinted or even photographed? Maybe the Government will begin with the refugees from Hitler, from Stalin and from Ho Chi Minh and see how far it gets with this proposal. No, let us expose this ID card proposal for what it is: Yet another glib political promise to deliver a benefit, yet containing within it the seeds of serious erosion of our privacy, self-respect and personal freedom. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(1.12) —Millions of Australians today suffer from a condition far worse than AIDS-acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The condition is more debilitating; it usually lasts a lifetime; it is transmitted from parent to child; but others have a natural immunity and are protected from it by birth. It lasts for generations and the child is affected from the moment of birth. Indeed, it begins at conception, and it costs this country billions of dollars annually. The whole nation is stifled by it. The repercussions of this condition cause suicide, family breakdown, countless secondary diseases and anti-social behaviour. This condition is humiliating and degrading and some people-single people with children and the unemployed-suffer the brunt of it more than others. Hundreds of thousands of Australians are reduced to begging because of these conditions and thousands die every year as a result. Some people however have a natural immunity, with well established ways of maintaining and building that immunity to this condition. So-called important people never suffer from it. If it was AIDS it would have been cured by now, but it is not. This condition affects the three million poorest Australians. They are people in poverty, including 800,000 children. One Australian in five is in poverty. According to the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty in 1973, 8.2 per cent of the Australian population, 780,000 people, lived below the poverty line. In 1984, 2.8 million people, including, as I said, 800,000 children, lived below the poverty line. Those 2.8 million people suffer daily from being forced to miss meals and having inadequate diets; from missing school because of lack of clothes; from being unable to afford the use of heaters or other appliances; from being forced to defer or go without medical treatment, especially dental and eye care; from being isolated; by the inability to afford a car or a telephone; from facing eviction and homelessness; from facing family breakdown; and from facing the possibility of losing their children to institutional care. Many suffer further degradation by being unemployed or by begging for handouts from emergency relief. They suffer further in themselves from seeing the effects of poverty and malnutrition on their children and the hopelessness of their own lives. The wealth distribution in this country is sickening. In 1968 the top 10 per cent of income earners earned 10 times the income of those 10 per cent at the bottom. In 1982, only a few years later, for every $1,000 paid to or earned by poor people, the rich received $56,000. We have suffered a massive redistribution of wealth in this country in the last 20 years. The wealthiest 2,500 Australians today earn or have assets which total as much as those of the poorest 2.5 million. If those 2.5 million people joined their hands, they would stretch in a line 3,000 kilometres long across the face of this nation, from Sydney to Perth. If the people at the other end, those 2,500 who own just as much as the poorest 2.5 million in this country, joined hands, they would barely stretch between two or three suburban railway stations, a distance of three kilometres. That is the situation of the maldistribution of wealth in this country. According to Phil Raskall, as reported in the 16 August edition of Business Review Weekly, there are 25,761 millionaires in Australia, and a recent Australian Taxation Office survey showed that four of those richest Australians paid no tax at all. One had assets greater than $20m and the highest income declared by one of those millionaires was $50,000 for one year. One cannot amass that amount of money and receive only $50,000 income. Clearly there is more than that. The poor are blamed for our fiscal deficit. They are blamed for the burden they place on the economy through social security payments and for cheating the social security system, and it is the poor who are used as an excuse for the introduction of ID cards. Let us look at some of the facts. The Department of Social Security estimates that in a year there are overpayments of about $65m in social security benefits. Most of this is recovered as most of them are accidental overpayments for a variety of reasons. About $10m is lost by deliberate cheating. At the other end, let us look at tax avoidance and tax evasion. Billions of dollars lost every year are costing the middle income earner and the poor people money-not the wealthy people. Without debating the idea of identity cards, it is the poor who are blamed in the community debate. It is said that they are the ones who are going to be stopped from cheating by the introduction of ID cards. There are just a few people who are trying to get a few extra dollars to make ends meet. The helpless and the poor-`the dole bludgers', all those young women who supposedly keep on having babies just so they can get a few more dollars from social security-are constantly blamed for the burden on this country. We hear that day after day. It is disgusting. Any who think that a person deliberately chooses such an existence deserve to be offered that choice themselves. None of them would take it. The wealthiest two-and-a-half-thousand own as much of this nation's assets as the poorest two-and-a-half-million. To bring that into proportion, to show the extent of cheating and disgusting behaviour from the rich of this country, for every wealthy person who cheats, perhaps the person who declared only $50,000 out of his $20m assets, any honourable member on the other side would have to show me one thousand poor people who are cheating the system. Most of the tax avoidance is legal and the taxation laws are an ass. The taxable income of the poor and the middle income earners, the workers, is the tax exemption of wealthy people. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), not necessarily in essence mutually exclusive people, today and tomorrow and time after time will pretend in here to support the poor and will say what this Government is not doing. It is a sham. They will call for the cutting of wages, the workers' wages and young people's wages, but they will not take action against the tax avoiders. They support a dual income system, a dual taxation system, where the income definition for the worker is different from the income definition for business. It is about time that this country, this society, this Parliament and the Press of this country faced up to this issue of poverty. It is about time that the middle income earners in this country began to realise whom they are supporting. They are not supporting the poor. They are carrying the burden of the rich. If poverty is cut, taxes will be cut. When the wealthy pay their due taxes, middle income earners' taxes will be cut and then the poor will receive their equal and fair share of the Commonwealth. This Government has done quite a deal to alleviate poverty and for the low income earners. We have seen an example of that in the Young Australia-Priority One program. I believe this is the greatest single chance for development of a meaningful youth employment system that this country has seen. But the problem exists in the attitudes of our community. Robert Holmes a'Court knows that one has to spend a dollar to make a dollar, but in other circumstances that does not ever have to be the case. Those like the person who made $60m, capital gains, tax free, last week in the Myers-Coles deal are the people who need to pay their fair share in this country. It is easy for people to blame governments and to say: `Why does the Government not do something?' But governments reflect community attitudes. The Press so often is responsible for community attitudes. Let us see the Press get stuck into the issue of poverty, bring it out and show what it is all about. So far it has refused. If I had time left I would draw attention to other instances. But let me point to this. Without getting stuck into one individual, the wealthiest person in Australia, Robert Holmes a'Court, last year increased his wealth by $135m. In one week his wealth increases by $2.6m. In one hour his wealth increases by $15,476. In the time that I have spoken, 10 minutes, his wealth has increased by $2,580. The wealth of a person on single unemployment benefit has increased by 8c-8c compared with $2,580. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(1.22) —I wish to draw the attention of the Parliament to an increasing problem which concerns all of us-that is, the provision of services and facilities for the aged in our community-and particularly to point out to the Parliament the problem of the shortage of nursing homes within my electorate of Gippsland. The figures, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would be well aware, speak for themselves. In 1985, the aged number 12.6 per cent of the total population. In the year 2001 that percentage will be 13.8. In the year 2021, the aged will be 18.8 per cent of the total popul- ation. Clearly this is a matter which concerns all governments on a bipartisan basis. I should from the outset lay to rest a certain amount of complacency which has set in following the release of the report of the Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test headed by Professor Fred Gruen and released in May 1984. I do this because some people have sought to rely on this report to lull us into a false sense of security regarding the need to prepare for the provision of services for the aged in the future. Professor Gruen concludes on page 9 in his report: . . . it may be relevant to point out that the aging of the Australian population has been a relatively minor factor in the growth of Commonwealth income support expenditures. It is important to bear in mind that the terms of reference of Professor Gruen's committee were merely to look at the proposed income and assets test. He made that remark as more or less a sideline and it has to be borne in mind that he was referring only to income support, that is, benefit-more commonly known as pensions-paid by the Commonwealth. Professor Gruen was not dealing with the capital costs of constructing nursing homes, hostels or self-accommodation units, or with the recurrent cost of those institutions, or with the health care cost. Quite simply, it is important to bear in mind that this is a problem which is of tremendous concern and which will be of increasing cost to the Government in the future. If further evidence is needed of the size of the problem, I refer to the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee report of October 1982 which at page 28 projects that in the year 2001 we will have a population of 1,071,000 people over the age of 75. I believe that governments recognise the problem but are not, in my view, working vigorously enough to tackle the problem, nor to deal with the problems already upon us. There are a number of implications arising from this. Governments must firstly put their own houses in order. We know that the overlapping, the duplication, the inefficiences of Commonwealth-State departments being involved in the provision of care for the aged is a tremendous problem, and we need to look at and streamline the procedures involved in applying for assistance and the actual dispensing of that assistance. We must also look at the value of the family as the basic unit in society and the need for governments to take the lead, in many cases, to ensure that the family remains the most important unit in society. Obviously this is a complex social issue, but there are a number of measures government can adopt: Taxation measures, a spouse rebate and split incomes are vitally important. Furthermore, we must look at the procedure for admissions to these institutions. There are obviously a number of people in nursing homes who should rightly be in hostels and a number of people, in turn, in hostels who should be in self-accommodation units. I believe that improvements are being made, but errors have been made in the past which have resulted in very vitally needed beds in short supply being inappropriately occupied. Furthermore, we must further develop the carer's pension which the Government announced in its Budget only two days ago. This has taken further the old spouse carer pension. I think it important to remember that this new category of pension, which will be introduced from November, is for people who provide constant care and attention for the severely handicapped or the aged or invalid pensioners at home, so long as those people are close relatives. This new carer's pension, which I welcome but which I believe is only the first step, has two setbacks in my view. The first is that a very stringent income test will be applied. Secondly, the value of the carer's pension will be set at that of an age pension. So I do not believe that sufficient people will be encouraged or perhaps allowed to care for their near relatives in a family situation. I am certainly not persuaded that this carer's pension should be means tested because if medical certificates are issued that the person should rightly be in a nursing home or a hostel, the provision of an aged carer's pension-to use my terminology-would obviously save the Government a tremendous amount of money. Moreover, I do not believe that it should be set at the low level of an age pension. We know that there are some 75,000 nursing home beds in Australia, which amounts to 5 per cent of the over-65 population. Projections for the next 15 years show us that these 75,000 beds will have to grow to between 110,000 and 130,000 beds, which is an increase of between 46 per cent and 75 per cent. The cost of institutionalised care is enormous. The Commonwealth spends some $900m per year on nursing homes. Moreover, the Commonwealth must pay some $330 per bed per week for nursing home care. For this reason the present Labor Government continued and further developed the previous coalition's policy of domiciliary care. My problem is that it has announced the development of a home and community care program three times-originally in the Budget of August 1984, again in the December election speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and again in Tuesday night's Budget. It is true to say that a number of people have been disappointed that it is not off and running as yet. Moreover, my criticism is that it appears the Government has placed too many of its eggs in the one basket. Because it has relied on this home and community care program, which is not functioning to anybody's satisfaction at present, it froze nursing home applications on coming to government in March 1983 and only now have some approvals in principle been granted of nursing home applications. Some seven in metropolitan Victoria were announced in March and I believe another eight or nine in the other States were announced in June. However, my primary concern is with the applications lodged by four institutions within my electorate: The Sale-Gippsland Base Hospital, which applied for a nursing home, together with, I understand, a private application; the Yarram and District Hospital; the Mirboo North Bush Nursing Hospital; and the Heyfield Bush Nursing Hospital. The State-Commonwealth Co-ordinating Committee, which makes recommendations to the Minister, is expected to consider the Gippsland region in early October. It is now working out the ratio of nursing home beds per thousand aged population at present within Gippsland. The State average is 60-63 beds per thousand aged throughout Victoria. So the outcome depends on how the Gippsland ratio fares as against this set ratio. All these areas desperately need nursing homes and all four hospitals have laboured under severe difficulties for some time. This is due, Madam Speaker, to the fact that long term patients have taken acute beds, resulting in a shortage on many occasions of such beds. There is no doubt that there is tremendous community support in all these areas for nursing homes. In Sale, for instance, some 4,000 people have signed a petition, we have some 88 letters of support and there have been a number of meetings. The concern throughout Gippsland is very marked. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I must thank the honourable member for Gippsland for elevating me to the position of Speaker, but I am still the Deputy Speaker. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(1.32) —While the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) is performing like one of Australia's middle order batsmen and his deputy is campaigning amongst the Melbourne establishment for the Party leadership, I thought I would take the opportunity this afternoon to tell the Opposition yet another reason why it is going to lose the next election. That reason is privatisation, and it is symptomatic of and central to the silent revolution that has taken hold in the Liberal Party, transforming it from the previously populist middle class Menzies party to the new radical and doctrinaire party of the far right that it has become. On 23 May this year the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) identified Telecom Australia, Australia Post and the Commonwealth Bank as targets for privatisation. On 7 May the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) went further, identifying education, hospitals, trains and electricity generation also as targets. Finally, not to be outdone after the last Liberal national council meeting, the Leader of the Opposition, in a script obviously written by someone else, announced that Trans Australia Airlines, the Australian National Line, Aussat, the Health Insurance Commission, the Australian Industry Development Corporation, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, the Pipeline Authority and the Commonwealth Bank would all be targets for privatisation. On 25 May the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), aptly placed in the Caesar Room of the Shore Inn on Sydney's palatial north shore, went on to show the whites of the eyes of the new right of the Liberal Party. Amongst the other things he was reported as advocating were: The abolition of the Federal jobs program; abolishing first child family allowances; eliminating road grants to States; eliminating public housing grants; and abolishing Federal grants to local government. Clearly, the radical elements of the Liberal Party have seen to it that their Party now occupies the lunatic fringe. The fundamental universal change that is advocated here would leave no element of Australian society unchanged. J. J. Carlton and Julian Beale have become the Bill Hartley and George Crawford of the Liberal Party. The political rationalisation for all of this is almost exclusively British. However, the British experience can be used for us to examine the myths of privatisation more deeply. The first myth is that privatisation is a means of spreading the wealth and ownership of resources. In Britain the trend of employees as small investors, the potential new class of capitalists which the Tories were seeking and which John Howard lies awake at night dreaming about, has clearly defied the right wing economic texts. They have already adopted a strategy which is obviously one of quick buy and sell or, even worse, do not buy at all, when it comes to share sales from privatisation. Employees of the renamed and privatised Cable and Wireless, Amersham and Britoil own less than one per cent of these companies. The concentration of ownership can also be seen in the sale of British Aerospace. Within one year of its privatisation the number of shareholders had plummeted from 157,829 to 27,175, of whom 3,279 own fewer than 100 shares. At the same time the number of shareholders holding one million or more shares had jumped from one to 13. Shareholders in Cable and Wireless dropped in number from 150,000 to 27,000 in only two months. Less than 9 per cent of the Amersham company's shares are in holdings smaller than #12,000 while nearly two-thirds are concentrated in lots of #250,000 or more. Far from spreading ownership, privatisation has therefore gone from publicly owned assets to highly concentrated share parcels for a few on the stock exchange. There is no reason to believe that Australian privatisation would be any different. The second great myth about privatisation is that it will of itself eliminate waste and expenditure in duplication. In Britain the facts are that privatisation has already cost millions of pounds. In the mad rush to sell off public housing, as Julian Beale advocates here, 2,500 acres of council land and over 400,000 council houses were sold with legal and real estate agents' costs of nearly #100m. The sale prices were generally at knock down value. For instance, in British Aerospace, Cable and Wireless and Amersham International, a loss of #441m was recorded. They were shortly later sold at handsome profits for a handful of shareholders on the British stock exchange. Project Mercury, the privatised part of the telecommunications network, highlights the duplication of services likely to result in privatisation between public and private sectors. It is yet to show one new service or reduced costs, while hiving off the Department of Transport's road construction, design and supervision in Britain went to 15 contractors, supposedly to reduce costs, the result being in fact increased costs. Still further numerous examples in many countries, including Australia, show a great tendency to price fixing in cartels amongst large corporations in the private sector. There has been no effective means advocated either here or overseas that privatised essential services can be made to escape this. The absolute irony, however, is that the Australian new right should propose privatisation as a solution to the alleged waste and inefficiency in statutory authorities in the public sector when they themselves were the administrators of our Federal public sector for 30 of the last 35 years. Finally, the British Tories have advocated, as by implication has the Liberal Party in Australia, that privatisation will restore the economy. Yesterday we heard the Treasurer put to bed the furphy that it will mean any tax cuts of any lasting duration. No evidence is evinced that privatisation will have any implications for the economy in terms of growth. If there be any other examples needed, one only has to look at the British economy itself. Of course, in this place a warning must go out to big business. The biggest loophole for the Liberals, of course, is whether all of big business will blindly follow on with the newly-found, newly-won ideology. Of course, today we have to recall that in Australia many of our biggest corporate earners gain their profits from, and can attribute their wealth to, government and government-controlled markets. The Business Review Weekly on 26 April this year cited the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, Boral, Dunlop Olympic Ltd, News Corporation Ltd and Thomas Nationwide Transport, to `name just a few'. It is therefore beholden to me in this place to call on the corporate sector in this country to view very closely the advocation of privatisation from the Opposition benches, now almost without exception as a belief. For the moment I rest my case on privatisation, but over the next few weeks I intend to say more on this issue because it is my belief that those on the Opposition benches are now locked into a policy of widespread privatisation that will cost them government at the next elect- ion if for no other reason than that, were it instituted in this country, it would mean thousands of job losses and escalated costs right across the board for every Australian family for many years to come. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(1.40) —Three major developments in industrial relations currently preoccupy the minds of concerned Australians. They are the Mudginberri dispute, the Hawke Government's legislation to enable deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation and politically inspired union activity seemingly designed to subvert the powers of the elected Government of Queensland. I do not intend to debate the issues today but those disputes and associated developments are the latest which contribute to the great anxiety for the future of Australia as manifestations of our outmoded and increasingly decrepit industrial relations system are increasingly evident. Industrial relations institutions and the laws that enable them to exist ineffectively remain of grave concern to most decent law-abiding Australians. The truth is that our industrial relations system is demonstrably flawed. One of the most important contributing factors is an absence of freedom of association in the work place. Although among the relatively few countries which protect and nurture the basic human freedoms, Australia is not consistent enough in its practices and laws to restore unfettered freedom of association in the work place. Disinterested observers might even be forgiven for thinking that we in Australia have become more preoccupied with protecting the privileges of organisations than with the freedoms of individuals. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act, in sections 47 (1) and 47 (2), provides the legislative vehicle for this state of affairs. Those provisions either enable or direct employers to give preference to unionists in employment and to discriminate against those who, for reasons best known and best kept to themselves, choose not to be members of a union or unions. Quite clearly, laws which require preferential treatment to be given to members of unions when seeking employment or when in it are discriminatory and are probably the first and most blatant example of affirmative action in Australia. Compulsion in the form of imposed preference for unionists defies logic and finds its genesis in a peace at any price mentality. Argument which seeks to justify compulsion usually is specious and not deserving of credence in a civilised, well-informed society such as ours. Nonetheless, unionism which does not depend on compulsory membership should always be available to Australian working men and women. An absence of compulsion by the restoration of complete freedom of association in the work place will encourage unions and union leaders to act in the best interests of existing and potential members. A greater concentration on the legitimate needs and aspirations of wage and salary earners who choose to join a union would be both possible and a desirable by-product of unfettered freedom of association in the work place. An absence of compulsion may even facilitate agreements between members of the work force of a particular employer which will serve to keep a struggling business viable. As it is today, the differing capacity of some employers to pay mandatory increases is not given the weight it deserves if maximum employment is to be obtained. The well worn argument that compulsory unionism is somehow justifiable because award conditions and benefits flow from the efforts of unions, seems to rely on a faulty concept that the beneficiaries of actions by unions should have to pay for the cost of those efforts. Extended logically, that reasoning would justify compulsory membership of political parties for all electors who might be said to be beneficiaries of the political process in this country. It is something of an understatement to observe that compulsory membership of a political party would be totally unacceptable. Similarly, the logic that beneficiaries must be members and must pay for the cost of the work of organisations could be extended to the multitude of industry, trade, professional and service organisations. For the sole beneficiaries of compulsory associations to remain the unions is plainly unacceptable. I am pleased to say that there is an international trend away from compulsory unionism. Whether the trend derives from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not clear. However, it is instructive to note that in Article 20, clause 1, it is stipulated that: Everyone has the right to freedom of association. Clause 2 states: No-one may be compelled to join an association. Sections 47 and 144 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are plainly in breach of both the letter and spirit of Article 20 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So, too, is application of the Act in breach of the International Labour Organisation's conventions Nos. 87 and 98, which Australia has ratified. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) assured the House last night that legislation then being debated would not breach ILO Convention No. 87, and that was welcomed. However, whilst we might be said to observe scrupulously the rights of unions we are very weak indeed on the freedom of individuals in the work place. In fact, whilst ILO conventions Nos. 87 and 98 are primarily concerned with the rights of individuals, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act confers those primary rights on organisations, which, of course, take the form of unions. Although Australia is in no way bound by its findings, the greatly respected European Convention on Human Rights and its judicial arm, the European Court of Human Rights, are also prominent in the fight against compulsory unionsim. With these developments in the free world, Australia is being left behind in efforts to restore the basic freedom to associate which automatically confers a freedom to disassociate. The notion of true industrial democracy has been distorted by use of the term in campaigns to impose worker control or worker participation on industry and business generally. In its pure form, industrial democracy can become a reality in Australia only if compulsory or coerced membership of a union are outlawed. For the affairs of unions to be conducted in a truly democratic way, that is a basic requisite. In turn, that will evolve only if potential union members can exercise a right to resign from one union and join another. There must exist an unimpeded right for working men and women to exercise freedom of choice in deciding whether to join a union, whether to resign and whether to join another union. Once true freedom exists, the union movement will remain viable and become truly independent of State control. Unions in Australia have influence beyond that of any other unelected group in the community to the undoubted benefit of union leaders. Union affairs have also been regulated by law and the various institutions created by law. That circumstance has, more than any other, worked against the desirable goal of viable independent unions. Along with voluntary union membership there must exist a freedom for unions to choose their own members. That is not now possible under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act by dint of provisions in section 144. It is with these and other matters and objectives in mind, that I have given notice of intention to introduce a private member's Bill, It is to be entitled the Conciliation and Arbitration (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 1985. I urge the Government to allow its introduction and to facilitate full debate on its provisions. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(1.50) —I rise in the House today to draw the attention of the Parliament and the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to the fact that the Australian Trade Practices Act is being breached by South African Airways and a range of private companies which are promoting tourism to South Africa. As honourable members would know, the Trade Practices Act contains important provisions protecting consumers in Australia from misleading or deceptive advertising. Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act provides that a corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. Section 53 of that Act provides that a corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services, or in connection with the promotion by any means of the supply of goods or services, represent that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, uses or benefits they do not have. Furthermore, Section 55 provides that a corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is liable to mislead the public as to the nature, the characteristics and the suitability or quantity of any services. It is clearly established in relation to section 52 that, in order to prove the commission of an offence, it is not necessary to prove a deliberate intention to mislead the public or that people have been actually misled or deceived. Nor is there any need to prove loss or damage to any person. The law is also clear that statements in advertising which are regarded as mere puffery, as the lawyers say, do not amount to a contravention of the Trade Practices Act. To explain this point further, the Trade Practices Commission has issued a circular which states that the Commission considers that, as a general rule, the use of such devices in advertising which, when read, viewed or heard as a whole, are self-evident exaggerations or expressions of opinion for the persons to whom the advertisement is aimed, for example, by referring to a product as the tastiest, do not of themselves contravene the section. I believe that I presented the law on this subject in a very fair and impartial manner. It is my professional opinion, and that of other lawyers I have consulted, that the publications I am to refer to clearly do not amount to mere puffery but are, in fact, breaches of the Trade Practices Act. The decision in the case of Hornsby Building Information Centre v. Sydney Building Information Centre in 1978 suggests that even statements which are literally true can breach section 52 of the Trade Practices Act if they create an overall impression which is misleading or deceptive. A misleading impression can be created just as much by silence as by expressed assertion. I will be supplying to the Attorney-General copies of a number of South African tourist publications which are clearly misleading and deceptive because they fail to warn Australian consumers that there are many places in South Africa where they might, depending on skin colour, be banned during their stay in South Africa and fail to give to potential Australian consumers a fair or accurate view of life in South Africa. These publications are, of course, often more than simple tourist publications. They are perceived, at least by the South African Government, as a way of promoting the phoney legitimacy of South Africa throughout the world. I do not believe that the Australian Government should turn a blind eye to what is clearly a contravention of Australian law to which Australian corporations are bound and which the South African Government and its offshoots have clearly flaunted with impunity to date in Australia. I emphasised that section 52, if breached, does not amount to a criminal offence. However, breaches of section 53 (c) and 55A of the Trade Practices Act are criminal offences. I draw the attention of the Parliament to the remedies which are available for a breach of the Act, including injunction or corrective advertising. I will be drawing this matter to the attention of the Attorney-General with a view to his referring my complaint to the Trade Practices Commission for detailed examination and action. I turn now to some of the particular corporations and organisations which I believe have engaged in misleading and deceptive advertising. They include South African Airways, the South African Tourist Board operating out of Sydney, Global (London Tours and Travel Australia) Pty Ltd, and also Bench International Pty Ltd and a number of other corporations. In the publication of the misleading and deceptive advertising I have referred to, it would be open for the Trade Practices Commission to take action against South African Airways, the tourist promoters and perhaps even the travel agents who displayed the publications. My complaint is not against the individual travel agents but against South African Airways and the major promoters who are responsible for the publication of the illegal material. There is a suggestion that South African Airways is wholly owned and operated by the South African Government and therefore enjoys some immunity because of the doctrine of foreign state immunity. The best legal advice I have is that this legal doctrine does not extend to the commercial activities of a foreign state. If it did, this conclusion would clearly be untenable because it would mean that South African Airways would not be bound by Australian consumer protection laws. The outrageous claims made in the travel publications, which I will refer to the Attorney-General, include the claim that: `South Africa has many ties and a close affinity with Australia so that the average Australian travelling in South Africa feels completely at home, having no language or cultural problems to overcome'. Another publication states: `You'll meet a population as colourful and varied as any in the world . . . but they will all speak your language'. A further publication describes the atmosphere where every guest is, in the tradition of true South African hospitality, looked after by people who care. You would not think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we were talking about one of the most repressive and brutal police states on the face of the earth, condemned, I would hope, by every single member of this Parliament. Another publication states: `Swing away Africa can show you everything, from the unspoiled natural attractions of Kruger National Park to the soft mellow beauty of the Stellenbosch vineyards. From the hustling bustling sky- scraper world of Johannesburg to the sedate charm of Cape Town'. Mr Deputy Speaker, can this be the same country that has been condemned, not only by this Parliament but also by every major human rights forum throughout the world? From the South African Tourist Board, we have this delightful statement: `Found within this heterogeneous composition of the peoples of South Africa is a unique diversity of lifestyles, of cultures, faiths, languages and social systems'. These publications go on. They flout the provisions of the Trade Practices Act; they paint what I believe is a deliberately false, misleading and deceptive picture of life in South Africa and what Australian tourists are subject to in South Africa. Before Australian tourists consider a trip to South Africa they should be made aware of what South Africa represents. Black South Africans make up 72 per cent of the population and yet are allowed to live permanently in only 13 per cent of the land. In May 1983 the average monthly wage in the mining industry was $1,395 for white workers and $260 for African workers. In 1981 per capita spending on education was $1,115 for whites and $170 for the blacks. In 1978 the Rand Daily Mail reported an infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births of 12 for whites and 282 for black Africans. The situtation is getting worse. Yet while this goes on in South Africa, the South African Government, the South African Tourist Board and a number of private corporations continue to publish these false and illegal publications in Australia. They amount in my opinion, Mr Speaker, to a clear contravention of the Trade Practices Act and I urge the Attorney-General to act. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with Standing Order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted. I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I advise the House of the following ministerial arrangements: The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) will be absent from Australia from 23 August until 13 September on Government business in Italy, Ireland and Scandinavia. Mr Peacock —Is he looking for Trimbole? Where is Trimbole? Mr HAWKE —The Attorney-General certainly has nothing to occupy him here at Question Time. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) will act as the Attorney-General in the Minister's absence and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) will represent the Acting Attorney-General in the House. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) will be absent from Australia on Government business in the United States of America from 24 August until 10 September 1985 and will not be present at Question Time tomorrow. In his absence, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) will act as Minister for Defence. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Treasurer to the statements of the Prime Minister about the beneficial effects of depreciation and the consequent job creation and also to page 73 of Budget Paper No. 1, in which it is said that the consequence of the devaluation there will be more employment prospects in manufacturing industry in 1985-86. Is it correct for honourable members to assume from both of these statements that the projected fall of 40,000 in unemployment benefit recipients predicted in the Budget Papers is based on an assumption of full discounting or is it based on an assumption of full wage indexation? Mr KEATING —The assumptions in the Budget Papers are based on the current wage principles and guidelines. Hence, I will deal with the point that has been spread in some journals, particularly in yesterday's Australian Financial Review, that the Budget was predicated on discounting. It is not predicated on discounting. Discounting could have some influence on the deficit, which we made explicit in our figuring. But the fact is that whatever the depreciation element turns out to be for the March and June quarters and for the September and December quarters, from which any national wage adjustment will be payable in April, even if that were to be paid for the two-month or three-month balance of the financial year, it would not affect the Budget activity aggregates. So the fact of the matter is that the whole premise of that argument is not correct. It is true, of course, that the influence on wages and inflation in the next financial year will be much more critical and the impact of that aspect upon activity will be heightened-hence the rhetoric and the advice in Budget Paper No. 1 about the need to contain costs and maintain our competitiveness. The present figuring of the Budget is based on current circumstances, including the current wage arrangements. Mr LINDSAY —Will the Minister for De- fence inform the House of the funds provided in the Budget for battlefield communications for the Australian Army and for other upgrading of the Army's capabilities? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. He has been assiduous, both in private and in public, in his questioning of me on matters relating to the development of the defence forces in this area. In fact, given his interest, he would be well pleased with the developments that are proposed in the Budget. A wide range of new equipment is being planned for the Army; some is under current acquisition. To address the honourable member's question directly, $21m has been allocated in this Budget for the DISCON communication system that is now being acquired for the Defence Force. The final phase will provide 10 fixed earth stations, including one at Townsville and another at Cairns, plus two mobile earth stations using a transponder on Aussat. I expect tenders for the earth stations to be sought later this year and a contract to be let in late 1986. It should be an operational system within two to three years. Funding in this Budget for other communications projects for the Army will include $24m for single channel field radio stations. They will be delivered in late 1987. The sum of $7.2m has been allocated for the equipment definition phase of Project Parakeet. That equipment will link field communications to major control centres and may also use satellites. The sum of $8.5m has been allocated for high-powered radios, to be delivered in September 1986. Some $2.4m has been allocated for wide-band secure voice equipment, to be delivered in mid-1986, and $7m has been allocated for electronic warfare equipment. The honourable gentleman will find that, in regard to the area that concerns him, we are more than adequately addressing any problems. We will also spend $7.7m on surveillance radar. This will be capable of picking up people as far away as 18 kilometres and trucks at 30 kilometres. The sum of $41m has been allocated this year for the purchase of 4 tonne and 8 tonne trucks. Some $83m has been approved for a project to provide 2,100 one-tonne and 400 two-tonne trucks for the Army. The sum of $10m has been provided for 43 all-terrain cranes for the Army engineers and $11m has been provided for mortar-locating radar. I could go on through a whole series of items that demonstrate that we are addressing very effectively the needs of the Army. In addition to those developments that I have specifically mentioned, which will impact on the honourable member's electorate, he will be pleased to know that a medical-dental facility costing $500,000 to replace a substandard facility is planned for his electorate. Other improvements to facilities have been approved, costing approximately $250,000. I believe that the honourable gentleman can be well pleased when he goes back to address his constituents, who include some of the most significant elements of our armed forces and particularly the Army, on the way in which the Government has treated the Army in this Budget. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to the statement made by the Minister for Finance yesterday that the Australian Council of Trade Unions could win a catch-up for discounting `within 12 months'. Will the Minister tell the House whether this will be the Government's offer to get the ACTU to accept discounting? Will he explain how Australia can become more competitive and create the so-called 100,000 jobs as result of the effects of devaluation if any catch-up is granted within a short time? Mr WILLIS —The Government has made it clear that the wages policy has to be adjusted to take account of the devaluation if we are to achieve the benefits that can be won from that devaluation, particularly in the area of employment. Therefore, a basic part of our consideration of our wages policy has been to ensure that that adjustment takes place. The precise way in which that adjustment will take place has been a matter of concern to the Government and we have given much thought to it. As was said by the Treasurer in the Budget Speech, we will be approaching the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to ensure that that adjustment of wages policy does occur. In so doing, as the Treasurer said, we will give consideration to the fact that, over time, the living standards of wage and salary earners should be maintained. The precise way in which that will be achieved is a matter which we will elaborate on at a future time. Ms MAYER —Will the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House of the priority the Government is giving to supporting young unemployed people through the community youth support scheme? Mr WILLIS —Since being in office the Government has been concerned not only to increase the employment for young people, which it has succeeded in doing, and reduce unemployment, but also to assist greatly the lot of the young unemployed. A very high priority has been given to supporting young unemployed people through the community youth support scheme. In this year's Budget we firmly reinforce that commitment to CYSS as a valuable labour market program. Funding this year is $32m, an increase of $6m or almost 23 per cent over last year, which means that in our three Budgets we have boosted funding for the community youth support scheme by $15m, or just over 80 per cent. This funding increase will enable some significant improvements to take place this year. All projects will receive cost of living adjustments to their grant levels. In addition to that there will be about 60 upgradings of projects which will enable them to operate at a higher level of activity. A total of $2m will be spent on establishing around 15 new projects in New South Wales and Queensland to remove the current inequity affecting these two States. This is an historic inequity which has come about through the submission-based form of the program developed over the years. The Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs pointed out that there was an imbalance between the proportions of unemployment in the various States and the proportions of CYSS programs. Therefore, to correct that imbalance, which is most acute in Queensland and New South wales, there will be 30 new projects, 15 in each of the two States. In addition, $700,000 will be allocated for training of CYSS personnel, which is greatly required, and there will be a similar amount for special initiatives to assist, particularly, disadvantaged young people. There will also be the introduction of triennial funding for CYSS projects. This has been wanted by CYSS projects because it will give them some stability, which they presently lack, enable them to obtain better premises, which is one of the great problems for CYSS projects, and enable them to devote much less time to paper and much more to getting on with looking after the young unemployed. It will also ensure a stiffening of the labour market orientation of the community youth support scheme. All of this adds up to a substantial upgrading of the program. This year an additional 10,000 young people will be assisted by CYSS over last year-85,000 altogether. It is an important program to assist young people who cannot get a job. I recommend that all members of the House take an interest in their CYSS projects if they do not presently do so. It is a very practical way to show real concern for the young unemployed. Mr PEACOCK —My question is again addressed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer him again to the statement yesterday of the Minister for Finance in which he said that productivity wage increases could be given to the Australian Council of Trade Unions to offset any loss from wage indexation. I remind the Minister that on 10 April this year the Prime Minister said: You can't be talking in 1985 about giving some increases on productivity grounds to productivity which occurred in the past. Mr WILLIS —A productivity case is allowed for under the principles of wage fixation established two years ago. That productivity claim has been lodged by the ACTU. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will give initial consideration to the processes by which that and other claims-the indexation case and the review of wage fixing principles-will be dealt with by the Commission at a hearing before the Commission next Tuesday. At that time the Commission will begin to sort out how it will deal with all of those applications. The lodging of a productivity claim is thoroughly within the principles. The question of what increase comes out of the case, when the case will be heard and when any such increase will apply is a matter for the future. The likelihood is that no increase will come from a productivity case in 1985. The most likely thing is that any increase coming from a productivity case will be in 1986. This case will be a major case because the ACTU has lodged a claim for an increase on the basis of productivity but to be taken in the form of improvement of, or the adoption of, superannuation schemes. That is something which is totally unique in the wage fixing system in this country. Until this time superannuation has not been a matter which has been dealt with by the Commission. For the Commission to be making a decision on a case which seeks an increase to be taken in the form of superannuation is indeed novel and poses many difficult issues for the Commission and for the parties. I expect that there would be initial consideration of many of those difficulties before any such productivity case got under way to consider the quantum and timing of any increase and the form of that increase. Therefore, I expect that it will be some way into 1986 before we get a decision on productivity. Mr GAYLER —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State and relates to that great part of Australia, the Great Barrier Reef. Have arrangements for surveillance of the reef been reviewed? If so, will the Minister outline the steps that the Government has taken to ensure that proper surveillance is undertaken? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for Leichhardt and also the honourable member for Herbert for the great interest they have shown in the Government's responsibility for coastal surveillance. When we came to office the Great Barrier Reef surveillance patrols were carried out by a Nomad aircraft which carried a 360-degree radar and which cost $1.2m a year. At the same time we set in train a review of the coastal surveillance procedures under the direct- ion of the then Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, who brought in certain recommendations as to changes that ought to take place. At that time, and before the setting up of the coastal protection units which gave the major task to the Australian Federal Police as the law enforcement agency of this Government in Cairns, Darwin and Broome, it was decided by Coastwatch that we should have a trial of the Shrike aircraft, which then could not carry the 360-degree radar which was carried by the Nomad. It was recommended that we should put in place a sideways looking airborne radar, SLAR, which was also being experimented with and in use in 10 other countries. I said at a Press conference in Townsville and Cairns last year that there would be a trial period for the evaluation of this radar and that if it did not prove effective for the purposes of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park we would replace it with an effective system as quickly as an evaluation could be done. That was in September last year. The evaluation of the radar has now been completed. It has been found that, while it has proved effective at detecting targets seaward, within the reef area itself it has not lived up to expectations. It should be emphasised, however, that the combined radar-visual detection rate of the Shrike was as effective as that of the Nomad. While the Great Barrier Reef patrol is predominantly a visual operation, the Government has always recognised the concern of the people of the north and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority that there be an adequate radar system. At the time the SLAR was introduced, I made it clear that if it did not live up to expectations action would be taken. We have agreed with the current contractor, Skywest, that a Beechcraft aircraft be fitted with a 360-degree radar and an infra-red identification system will undertake the Great Barrier Reef task for the three-month period commencing in October after the present SLAR is removed. This aircraft, so equipped, has considerable potential for ocean surveillance. We will be looking to make permanent arrangements after that time and in the context of letting new contracts for the coastal surveillance task in March 1986. I also point out that, at the behest of the honourable members for Leichhardt and Herbert, I have had no fewer than six meetings with the coastal protection unit people and representatives of all the Federal and State government agencies connected with coastal surveillance in the last 12 months. I will keep to my undertaking of meeting with them again in September. I invite the honourable members for Leichhardt and Herbert to partake with me the first flight of the Beechcraft over the Great Barrier Reef next month. Mr HODGMAN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. With housing interest rates at their highest level ever in real terms since the Great Depression, does the Minister stand by his predictions in the House yesterday that pressure on housing interest rates will moderate? Has the Minister noted the market reaction to the Budget, with interest rates closing high and the revelation that deposits are drying up? Is the Minister as optimistic today as he was yesterday and, if so, why? Mr WEST —Obviously, no one in this House can say with absolute certainty what is going to happen to housing interest rates over the next couple of years. What I said yesterday and what I will repeat is that the achievement of this Government in getting the domestic deficit down to $1.4 billion will place less pressure on the public sector borrowing requirement and, consequentially, will ease the pressure on general interest rates. That will be a good thing for the future of housing interest rates. There has been pressure from the savings banks in recent months to deregulate housing interest rates on the basis that the growth in savings bank deposits has been falling. That is true. However, it is falling from a peak of 24 per cent which it was several years ago. Who in this House would argue that we should want a continuing growth in savings bank deposits of 24 per cent? If that were the case, we would certainly see a consequential drop in consumer demand, which this Government does not want to see. What I said yesterday-and what I repeat-is that the growth in savings bank deposits has returned from being between 5 per cent to 8 per cent to 8.5 per cent, which is in line with the long term trend in growth of the late 1970s and early 1980s. I have been in close contact with the Treasurer on these matters. The Government is not currently considering the deregulation of housing interest rates, nor do we see any need to do so at the moment. I say to the honourable member for Denison that I am still reasonably confident about the stability of housing interest rates. Mr FREE —Has the attention of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism been drawn to criticism by the Opposition and certain sections of the media of the Government's decision to provide tax relief to the racing industry? Mr JOHN BROWN —I have noticed the criticism that has emanated from certain sections of the media and particularly from some members of the Opposition yesterday, including, as I understand it, the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Peacock —What is this? Mr JOHN BROWN —It was on the Derryn Hinch show. I must say that I am not only dismayed but also amazed that the people who made this criticism are unaware of the history, the size and the extent of the racing industry in Australia. I say `industry' quite advisedly because, like most other things honourable members opposite look at, they misinterpret it. As they misinterpreted for many years the size of the tourism industry, so they have failed to realise the size of the racing industry. Let me point out to honourable members opposite in quite stark terms the size of the racing industry. The industry employs upwards of 250,000 people full time and part time. It has a turnover of $15,000m, five times the turnover of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. Yet the characters opposite think it is just a fun thing. So when this Government does something very constructive to promote and foster a very important industry, all honourable members opposite can do is to trivialise it. The Government did three very simple things. It took away from racing clubs the necessity to pay income tax, which put them on the same basis as every other sporting club in Australia, including the Leader of the Opposition's favourite Essendon club and the Sydney Medicare football club. We took away the sales tax that was payable on the import of thoroughbreds to race in Australia and allowed breeders to write off their sires and mares in exactly the same way as breeders have been able to do in New Zealand for the last 10 years. In other words, we have given our breeders an equal opportunity with New Zealand breeders to foster our industry. We hope to stop the drain that has been occurring for the last five or six years, when 40 per cent of our best brood mares have been exported to New Zealand to breed. I do not think it is extraordinary that we have done that. I hope that the Opposition will come to the conclusion that racing is not only about drinking champagne and eating caviar from the boot of a Rolls Royce at the Melbourne Cup. I would have hoped that when the Leader of the Opposition, with some of his ex-ministerial colleagues, was poncing around in the members' stand at the Melbourne Cup together with a Governor-General of recent ill fame, frightening the horses, he might have learnt that racing was about the love of Australians for the sport and the right of many ordinary Australians to get a living. Many Australians are employed in the areas that the characters opposite represent. I am sure that the honourable member for Lindsay, representing as he does a great many studs and resting paddocks of his area, is aware of the employment that is created by the racing industry. Let me finish on the following note: Racing has such a profound impact on the society of Australia that Phar Lap, a dead horse, and Tommy Woodcock, his gentle trainer, will be remembered long after most of us have been forgotten. Mr HODGMAN —In view of the clarity of the last answer by the Minister for Housing and Construction, I now ask him another question. Will he now publicly dissociate himself from the 1984 election promises of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that housing interest rates would fall in 1985? Specifically, will the Minister now publicly dissociate himself from the statements of the Treasurer on 4 November last year that `we have a further interest rate step fall ahead of us' and that `I am sure that there are further declines in housing rates ahead of us'? Finally, if the Minister is not prepared publicly to dissociate himself from those state- ments, will he now clearly tell the home owners of Australia when in 1985 they can expect housing interest rates to drop? Will the Minister give us the benefit of his expert predictions as to the movement of housing interest rates for the remainder of the current financial year? Mr WEST —Firstly, this is all very strange coming from an Opposition which, when in government, presided over housing interest rates in excess of 14 per cent. Secondly, I will not dissociate myself from anyone on my side of the House. Thirdly, we have held the regulated ceiling on housing interest rates at 13 1/2 per cent ever since we have been in office. The base rate of savings bank concessional interest rates is still one per cent less than that at 12 1/2 per cent. Fourthly, in the 1984-85 financial year the rate of growth in the number of housing loans from savings banks was a record 8 1/2 per cent. That is what has happened under this Government. I conclude by repeating what I said in answer to my last question so that it will go right through the mind of the honourable member for Denison. I have consulted with the Treasurer and we seen no reason at present to consider the deregulation of housing interest rates or to lift the ceiling of 13 1/2 per cent; nor should we, because in 1984-85, we achieved growth in housing loans representing the highest level of housing starts since 1974-151,000-and that was the third highest ever recorded in Australia's history. Ms McHUGH —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of the poverty faced by many women in Australia? Can the Minister confirm that, as a result of that poverty, women are disproportionately represented among people on social security? What steps is the Government taking to address the problem of women in poverty? Mr HOWE —It is true that poverty indices tend to confirm that women are more likely to be in need than men. As reflected in social security data, 69 per cent of all pensions are paid to women; 60 per cent of total social security payments are paid to women; 78 per cent of female pensioners and beneficiaries receive the full rate-that is, they have little other income; and 70 per cent of rent assistance payments go to women. This poverty reflects the reality that we have had a rapid increase in the incidence of sole parenthood; it reflects the generally lower income levels and work force skills possessed by women; and, of course, it reflects the fact that women have child care responsibilities which often mean that they are unable to enter the work force at a time of opportunity and often do not receive the permanency that is available for male members of the work force. The Government is very conscious of what has been described as the feminisation of poverty within this country. The reality is that, if we fail to act with respect to poverty, in a sense we are discriminating against women, who are so overrepresented amongst the poor within this country. We have taken a number of initiatives in the context of this Budget which continue the emphasis placed by this Government on seeking to redress that inequity and to remove the poverty which faces women. The mother's guardian's allowance, which is up 20 per cent in this Budget, has doubled in the three Budgets of the Hawke Government. Additional allowances for children, which are up $2 in this Budget, have gone up 60 per cent in the three Hawke Budgets. The family income supplement paid to lower income workers has also gone up 60 per cent. As I remarked yesterday, we have introduced a carer's pension, and respite care arrangements will be of particular benefit to women. We have introduced in this Budget for the first time multiple child payments, which means that mothers of triplets will receive a grant of $150 per month as a matter of right from the social security system, and mothers with quadruplets will receive $200 a month. The Government has confirmed in this Budget its commitment to providing 20,000 child care places over the life of the Government. So it is true that women are overrepresented amongst the poor. I think it is also true that this Government, perhaps more than any other, has addressed that problem and sought to achieve a direction towards the elimination in the longer term of poverty in Australia and, in particular, poverty amongst women. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Treasurer to the answer he gave to my earlier question. Does that answer mean that the beneficial effects of the recent devaluation will play no part in the projected fall of 40,000 in unemployment benefit recipients this year? Mr KEATING —It does, of course, but obviously there will be- Mr Howard —It does? Mr KEATING —It does in part, of course, but as we move through the year and into 1986-87, obviously the benefits of the depreciation, if preserved, will produce better employment growth. That is the point the Prime Minister and I have made on a couple of occasions. Mr O'NEIL —Can the Minister for Communications advise the House on the potential impact of the bans by Australian Broadcasting Corporation staff on all satellite-related activities for the ABC's proposed new Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service and new program distribution arrangements? Mr DUFFY —I understand that the ABC will be going before Commissioner Caesar of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission this afternoon and will seek a direction that the staff union lift the current bans on ABC utilisation of Aussat and that staff meetings be held in all States. I advise the House that the Government strongly supports that application by the ABC for the lifting of the bans because those bans will be devastating to the service to be provided to outback Australia through HACBSS. One of the issues which has arisen is that the ABC Staff Association has been stating regularly that this is an argument with the Government and not with the ABC. It has said that because it is critical of this year's Budget allocation of $395m to the ABC. The Staff Association has been told over and over again that that allocation of $395m includes the sum of at least $30m which was specifically allocated for satellite-related matters. I think what has to be understood here today by honourable members and by the members of the Staff Association peddling that line is that this Government is not going back and redoing the Budget to suit the convenience of the ABC Staff Association. The fact of the matter is that in a year when the Government lowered the deficit by $1.8 billion and came in with a deficit of $4.9 billion the ABC was treated extremely well in this Budget. It is not just a matter of representations being made to me in relation to the allocation of funds to the ABC. That is not the issue. The fact is that I do not propose, under any circumstances, to make any representations to the Minister for Finance or to the Treasurer for any increase in the Budget to the ABC. The sooner people understand that the better. If the ABC Staff Association intends to hold to ransom people in outback and remote areas of this country let that be on its head. In relation to the specific question asked by the honourable member for Grey, the bans will affect not only HACBSS but also the current remote area television service provided to areas such as Leigh Creek, for example, which is in the honourable member's electorate. Unfortunately with that service the people of Leigh Creek receive their programs from Brisbane. Not surprisingly, they would prefer them to come from Adelaide. If Aussat operates under the HACBSS system, they will receive their programs out of Adelaide. But with the Intelsat service there will be a change of satellite later in the year and if these bans continue the remote area television service will be lost completely for about three weeks. It will then be necessary for the ABC to enter into a contract with the Overseas Telecommunications Commission to transfer to the other satellite and Telecom Australia will have to repoint dishes throughout the country. That will involve the ABC in further expense which is totally unnecessary in the circumstances because the current situation brought about by these bans should not have eventuated. One thing that ought to be understood by staff association members is that the appropriation the Corporation received included a substantial sum which was specifically-I repeat, specifically-allocated to satellite-related matters. The fact is that, the way they are carrying on at the moment, they must be looking at a weekly reduction in the allocation made to the ABC. It will certainly not be increased. Mr PEACOCK —I ask the Prime Minister to confirm that his Government has never withdrawn the de jure recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor which was given by the then Australian Government on 14 February 1979 and that his Government has in fact continued to negotiate the seabed boundary of Timor with the Indonesian Government. I ask the Prime Minister to put an end to the confusion which has led to the withdrawal or recall of the Portuguese Ambassador and confirm that the Labor Government continues to recognise Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor. Mr HAWKE —I sincerely thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. In an interview I gave on 25 July, on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the independence of Indonesia, I said: `We recognise the sovereign authority of Indonesia'. I go back a little before the date mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. In December 1978 the now Leader of the Opposition in his then capacity as Foreign Minister stated that Australia would recognise Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor and that de jure recognition took effect, as he said, in February of 1979. It is important to note that it has not been revoked by any subsequent government. I remind the House that recognition of the fact of Indonesian control over East Timor has been repeatedly demonstrated over the last several years. Let me illustrate that. Australian delegations, including parliamentary delegations, have obtained Indonesian permission to visit East Timor. So have representatives of the Australian media. The Australian Government has pursued human rights and aid issues in East Timor through the Indonesian Government. The very important family reunion program from East Timor was agreed to by the Indonesian Government. If I may pick up the point specifically alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition, it is the case that the negotiations between Australia and Indonesia over the unresolved seabed boundary adjacent to East Timor have continued with the Indonesian Government. These negotiations, the successful conclusion of which is of importance to Australia, can in practice be concluded only with the Indonesian Government. Having said those things, I add that the Government has expressed to Indonesia its concern at the way East Timor was incorporated. It has raised and will continue to raise the question of human rights in East Timor. It has sought free access for the media, for international organisations and aid workers to East Timor, and it has supported international initiatives to settle the Timor problem, including extensive discussions with the United Nations Secretary-General, Indonesia and Portugal. I understand that the Portugese Ambassador suggested today on Australian media that my statement has undermined Portugal's efforts to reach a settlement of the problem with Indonesia. My friend and colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs has indicated to me that the Portuguese Ambassador has advised that no official Portuguese Government statement has been made of a connection between any withdrawal and what has been said. I emphasis this point: The legal fact that Australia has since 1979 recognised Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor has not previously hindered either our ability or Portuguese ability to seek a settlement of this problem. I see no reason why a statement by me of that legal fact now should in any way change the situation. Mr CHYNOWETH —Is the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment able to say what progress has been made towards a decision on export licences for Tasmanian wood chips? Can he state what efforts have been made to consider the environmental consequences of any decision? Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for his question, which is supplementary to the question asked of the Prime Minister yesterday by the honourable member for Lyons. A draft environmental impact statement on this proposal was prepared in accordance with the administrative procedures under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act by the three companies exporting wood chips from Tasmania and the Tasmanian Forestry Commission. It was available for public review from 22 February to 15 May of this year. Following the public review the Act requires the proponents to undertake a final EIS taking into account all public comment. The proponents are currently carrying out this task. I expect the final EIS to be submitted to the Commonwealth in September. It will be fully considered before any Commonwealth decisions with regard to the grant of export licences are made. In the event that further information is required to complete the assessment the Act's procedures enable this to be obtained from the proponent within 21 days of receipt of the final draft. Following this I will be in a position to make comments, recommendations or suggestions on the environmental aspects of the proposal. Of course the final decision will be made by the Minister for Primary Industry. I can assure the honourable member that full and proper weight will be given to the environment as well as the employment values of Tasmania's native forests. I have visited this spendid wilderness area on a number of occasions. The Government's record on environment protection in Tasmania is well known and it does not now intend to renege on its commitment. Mr SPEAKER —I present the report and financial statements of the Reserve Bank of Australia for the year 1984-85, together with the Auditor-General's report thereon. This action is required of me pursuant to the Reserve Bank Act. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 33 (3) of the Australian National University Act 1946, I present the Australian National University Interim Annual Report Part 1 for 1984. Part 2 of the report, containing the Auditor-General's report and financial statements, will be presented as soon as it is available. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 26 of the Tobacco Marketing Act 1965, I present the Australian Tobacco Board annual report for 1984. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I table the 1984 annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Nominal Defendant. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I table the 1983-84 annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Building Standards Committee. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I table the 1983-84 annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the 1983-84 annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Milk Authority. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the 1983-84 annual report of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —I present the final report of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam. I present also the text of a statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) relating to the final report of the Royal Commission. Motion (by Mr Holding)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provision of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the final report of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I do. In the Senate yesterday the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, disputed the claim I made on the Carleton-Walsh Report on Tuesday evening in a debate with the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in which I said that in the first Budget I brought down in 1978-79 the trilogy adopted as holy economic writ by the present Government had been met. The basis for Senator Walsh disputing that claim was that in that first Budget there had been a money increase of $140m in the size of the deficit, compared with 1977-78. Of course, that is true. However, the deficit of 1978-79 was lower in terms of percentage of gross domestic product than the previous year. The fact is that the condition of the trilogy that the deficit be reduced in money terms, as distinct from a reduction as a percentage of GDP, relates only to 1985-86. Therefore, the basis of Senator Walsh's rejection of my claim is false. For good measure I remind Senator Walsh also that the Budget deficit as a proportion of GDP in the year immediately preceding my becoming Treasurer was 3.7 per cent of GDP and in the final Budget I delivered in 1982-83, five years later, it was 2.7 per cent of GDP. Mr SPEAKER —I think the last sentence which was slipped in might have been outside the guidelines. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TUCKEY —During the debate on the matter of public importance yesterday a verbal exchange occurred between the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and myself. During that exchange, the following words were included in Hansard: Mr TUCKEY —You could not even deliver a Christmas present for Warren Anderson. Mr KEATING —Why do you not shut up, you clown? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, this man has a criminal intellect. Mr Speaker, the implications of the Treasurer's sudden turn of mind to criminality at the mention of his close friend, Warren Anderson, can be answered only by others who know them better. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I must remind the honourable member for O'Connor that he has been allowed to make a personal explanation on the ground that he has been personally misrepresented. The rules applying to that are very stringent; they are not meant to promote argument or debate. I ask the honourable member to proceed to the point of his personal misrepresentation. Mr TUCKEY —I wish therefore to say that I wish to assure the House that I do not have a criminal intellect, even if his friends do. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —On the same matter- Mr SPEAKER —Does the Treasurer claim to have been misrepresented? Mr KEATING —I do. I make this point to the House and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey): If he wishes to continue to abuse members by throwing aspersions and other things at them, the response will come. The most appropriate advice for him is to behave himself. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind honourable members once more about the requirements for making a personal explanation. The problem is that, if they are abused, the Chair will be forced to restrict them. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —by leave-As a Government we will be legislating in this session for a very different Australia from that which we faced when first elected in 1983. The policies we have followed and the legislative programs we have implemented have quite literally turned Australia around from the position it was facing when we assumed power. On every indicator, the Australian economy and society are in a better position than they have been for a decade. We still, however, have a lot to do. The legislative program for the Budget sitting is a reasonably heavy and complicated one, and reflects the Government's commitment to reform. I now outline our legislative program. In the field of arts, heritage and the environment, we propose legislation to protect Australian cultural property by preventing the illegal import or export of cultural property. We want also to pass legislation clarifying the collection policy to be adopted by the Museum of Australia and the extent of the national collection to be housed in that Museum. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) will be seeking passage of the Bill of Rights package which will not only give effect in Australia to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights but also establish a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Prohibitions on racial and sexual discrimination will be strengthened in other legislation. Privacy legislation will be brought forward setting forth privacy principles in accordance with the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission. In addition, and with the co-operation of the States, the Government plans to abolish the residual constitutional links between Australia and the United Kingdom. The Evidence Act will be amended to provide for the admissibility in Australia of evidence taken overseas. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation's legislation will be amended to implement recommendations of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. We will enhance the operation and effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act. We will amend the companies and securities legislation to effect necessary reforms. A Bill will be introduced to improve the existing law related to the jurisdictional immunities of foreign governments and agencies. The now anomalous provision in the Judiciary Act relating to legal aid for defendants charged with Federal offences will be repealed. In aviation, various regulatory changes will be accompanied by legislation to establish a statutory authority to plan, develop and operate Australia's major civil airports. The Government also will guarantee borrowings by Qantas Airways Ltd for aircraft. There will be substantial amendments to the communications and broadcasting Acts. Among other things, we will be clarifying the powers of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, and authorising the Overseas Telecommunications Commission to form and invest in companies carrying on business relating to telecommunications. In community services, we will legislate to set up our own home and community care package. In education, Bills will be introduced to provide for cost increases and appropriate grants for both government and non-government schools as well as to spread participation and equity program funding over 1986 and 1987. The structure and administration of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission will be altered. Amendments will enable us to ensure the more efficient working of the student assistance scheme, and amendments will be introduced to facilitate changes to overseas student charges. In employment and industrial relations, we will take further steps to promote occupational health and safety. Superannuation provisions for members of Parliament will be revised. In health, the future role of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories will be defined in law. Further changes will be made to health legislation, particularly to facilitate reciprocal health care agreements with other countries, and to modify existing provisions concerning medicare offences and the disqualification of medical practitioners. We will also pass legislation introduced during the autumn sitting period to provide financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory for the tertiary education of nurses. Procedures under the Citizenship Act will be changed. Various stand-by duties and bounties will be modified. There will be customs and excise changes. In primary industry, we are introducing legislation to improve the charging system for export inspection services. Comprehensive packages of Bills are being introduced to deal with fisheries and with research funding for the wheat, dairy and grain legums industries. Some aspects of Public Service employment conditions will be changed. A legislative basis will be provided for the operations of the Australian Safeguards Office. A successor to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission will be created. We will move to give wider protection to information held by the National Crime Authority. We will also make changes to the broadcasting and electoral legislation arising from the second report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. In trade, we will pass legislation to create an Australian Trade Commission. We will also upgrade the export market development grants scheme. In transport, legislation will be brought forward to register vehicle and license operators engaged in interstate transport and commerce as part of the implementation of the national road freight industry inquiry. Various aspects of the taxation laws will be amended. A draft Veterans' Entitlement Bill was tabled in the Senate in the final week of the autumn sitting period, to enable wide-ranging consultations with all affected interest groups to proceed. The Bill, altered if necessary to take account of the results of those consultations, will be introduced during this sitting period. As is always the case, unforeseen circumstances may cause changes to the program I have outlined. However, it indicates the direction we will be taking during these sittings and consolidates the direction of reform established during the previous Parliament. I commend the program to the House and look forward to the assistance of honourable members in its implementation. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(3.02) —by leave-There are several comments that I would like to make on the program that the Special Minister of State and Leader of the House (Mr Young) has outlined today. First, in the Minister's statement he set out a list of legislative proposals which he says are nation shaking and earth shattering. He refers amongst other things to the Budget and to a Bill of Rights package, which includes ratification of an international covenant on civil and political rights and a human rights and equal opportunity commission. Of course, those are weighty subjects and they will undoubtedly ensure a rigorous growth in the legal industry and perhaps portend an extension of a system of litigation which makes the courts accessible to the poor and the very rich. However, all those in between those two groups will find it ever more difficult. In his statement the Minister says: The legislative program for the Budget sittings is a reasonably heavy and complicated one. Indeed it is. It is complicated by the very process that the Government has set in train to produce its Budget. I wish to explain what I mean. We must look at the Budget as the second instalment in the battle that this Government is having with the Australian Council of Trade Unions to reduce pressures on the wage sector of the Australian economy. As we all know, the first instalment was the tax summit where the Government conceded victory completely to the trade unions. This Budget holds out the hope that the unions should reduce their demands in favour of encouraging a growth in the economy of 5 per cent. That is the growth target that is fundamental to the success of the Budget. That is why the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) are whizzing all over the country trying to explain it. The issue affecting the Budget, of whether wages should rise to insulate workers against the increasing prices caused by the fall in the Australian dollar, is very contentious. In his statement the Minister says: On every indicator, the Australian economy and society is in a better position than it has been for a decade. That is very open to question if we look at the debate that is now taking place between the Government and the trade unions. Both the Government and the trade union leadership, which supports it, are being somewhat mealy-mouthed about taxation and discounting of wages. There really is not sufficient formal commitment in the Budget Speech to discounting wage claims by the amount of the fall in the value of the Australian dollar. The Government hopes that the projected deficit of $4.9 billion will provide incentive for an increase in the value of the Australian dollar sufficient for it to persuade the unions over the next couple of months that they should accept the position which allows considerable discounting when they approach the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission next month. In summary, what do we have? We have a deficit target of $4.9 billion based on a growth target of 5 per cent which, in turn, is dependent on the deal yet to be made with the ACTU on the wage case presentations before the Arbitration Commission. These deals will be made in the context of the ACTU participating fully in the forthcoming drafting of the taxation proposals. As the Minister has said in his statement today, this is a very complicated process indeed. The Government finds itself in a position where it must get a favourable wage decision if it is not to look foolish in terms of the projections that it has used in determining the Budget. In order to do this, it may well decide to take the risk and introduce unpopular taxation measures to meet the ACTU's demands and to satisfy the ideological demands of the left wing of the Labor Party. So, all of us in the House and around the nation await with interest the third and fourth instalments of the Budget concept-namely, taxation decisions in September and wage case determinations in November. It will be the taxation measures that will tell the real story of the wheeling and dealing operating between the Government and the ACTU. There are some people who would argue that that is really not the way to run a country. When the Minister comes to the House and says that the Budget legislative program is complicated, what he is really saying is that we have had only half a Budget and the taxation legislation part of it is still to come. So this statement by the Minister about the legislative program does not notify us of the scope and extent of the new taxation proposals-one of the two footballs being kicked around by the ACTU and the Government. It may well be that those two well-named `nasties'-capital gains taxes and taxes on fringe benefits-will be part of the deal that is formed with the ACTU. We must look forward to that because that is the price that the Government will have to pay to the Left to get it to accept a measure of discounting. So the legislative program is indeed complicated, but it is complicated mainly by the way the Government is going about the business of getting the trade union monkey off its back. Therefore, it is not very easy to judge how adequate an allowance the Government has made for parliamentary debate. The Government does not have control of the Senate and it will be interesting to see the effects of this on the parliamentary process in this chamber. This morning a great deal of time was taken up with the business of processing amendments made in the Senate, and usefully so. We all know that the Prime Minister dislikes Parliament. He has not been here very long and he cannot handle it very well. Unfortunately, unlike the Minister who introduced the statement this afternoon, the Prime Minister has few attractive parliamentary qualities. On the other hand, the Minister has a well established parliamentary personality. He is gifted in this area and his gifts are so exercised that they cover up the abnormal attitude of the Prime Minister to Parliament. I mention this because the Prime Minister's strength is in his ability in Question Time to harangue members. In 1981 the number of questions without notice per sitting day was 15.2. This was reduced to 10.9 in the autumn session of 1985-down by one-third. The reason is that the Prime Minister likes to hold the floor. He enjoys a certain crudity of language, attacking from a position in Question Time when he cannot be answered back. As soon as he is, he turns to the Chair for protection. In all of these circumstances we would find that the amount of parliamentary time available to private members has been reduced by the attitude of the Government and principally of the Prime Minister. Some people feel that this is a fairly effective way to deal with parliamentary debate, but we on this side of the House have a very real concept of the importance of this institution. We believe it is tremendously important that private members on both sides of the Parliament have a real and adequate opportunity to express their views. One of the problems we have and one of the reasons why the Prime Minister does not like Parliament is that when there is a parliamentary week, there is a caucus meeting as well. Those meetings are becoming more and more uncomfortable for the Prime Minister-one could almost say excruciating-because he is called upon to justify his policies to the Socialist Left faction and to the Centre Left faction. We have had recent examples where he has appealed to those factions to give up their meetings and to become once again one jolly, happy family. Of course, there was an immediate response from the leaders of the three factions to that call from above, and they went ahead and held their separate meetings on the day before the Parliament met. We have had a series of responses to the Prime Minster's threats to the factions. I was particularly taken by the response of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) to the Prime Minister's injunction when he said: I am taking his advice that people should stick to their own lasts and hammer away happily there seriously, and I'm hammering away happily at my little last. The Minister went on to say: Ministers have a responsibility to stick to their last, tinker away happily and industriously and if we all do that I think we'll do pretty well. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is a real cobbler, as we all know, but he will have his own special way of pointing out the absurdity in the statements made by the Prime Minister. The Minister will do that by way of the derision with which he greets those sorts of statements. The legislative program set out by the Leader of the House is reasonably detailed. What really worries me is that if we are to take as an example the previous sitting of the Parliament, we will have long debates for the majority of the sitting time allowed, and then in the last few weeks we will have a plethora of Bills introduced. They will be rammed through this Parliament and proper opportunities for debate by members on both sides of the House, but particularly on this side, will not be allowed. What will happen is that we will have a further erosion of private members' time. We will have, for instance, the adjournment question negatived, as happened time after time during the latter stages of the last sitting, and we will be sitting after 12 o'clock at night as we were during the last session of Parliament, simply because the Government and this Minister have proved themselves totally inadequate in having a reasonable legislative program which allows for a spreading out of the work load over the time of the session. It simply is not good enough, and the example that the Minister provided in the last session leads one to be extremely concerned about the nature of the business and when it will come before this House. We need to have more detail; we need to have a commitment by the Government and by the Minister that private members' time will no longer be eroded in the unconscionable fashion it was in the last session. This Parliament, as we all know and as we have heard from Mr Speaker on a number of occasions already this session, is a most important institution, and members of the Parliament must be seized with the determination not to allow it to become a mere rubber stamp for the Executive. That will happen if the Leader of the House continues to adjust and to manipulate the legislative program in the way which occurred during the last session. It does no service to the Parliament of the nation. It does not allow adequate and appropriate debate on the very major issues involved. It denigrates and downgrades the importance of this institution, and it does no credit to the Government to allow itself to adopt or to be encouraged to adopt that attitude. The legislative program is complicated, and that is because the Government is in the middle of a new process where we have four bites at the Budget. We have already had the taxation summit; we have had the first half of the formal Budget; we will have the second half when we get the taxation statements in September; and we will get the last bit when the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission reports in November. It is a complicated Budget; it is a complicated legislative program. But this side of the House will make every endeavour to play its role properly in debating the issues. We will insist that private members have adequate debating time. Government's Legislative Program Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —by leave-I make this statement a few days prior to my departure on my first visit to China. My visit will be the latest in a number of visits at the highest political level that has taken place since 1972, when Gough Whitlam took the bold and courageous first steps which finally led to the end of the official refusal to recognise the existence of the People's Republic of China. I hope my visit will further enhance the trade relationship which has grown over a number of years. Let me remind honourable members that it was only in 1960 that the wheat trade commenced. When the Hawke Government came to office, particular attention was given to our relationship with China. Following the successful visit by Premier Zhao Ziyang to Australia in 1983 and the visit to China by Prime Minister Hawke in February 1984, this effort has been reflected in the bilateral trade relationship which has focused on the prospects for longer term co-operation between the two economies. The Prime Minister made it clear at the outset of his North Asian visit that he was seeking to integrate Australia's economy more effectively into the development of its region. The scope for long term economic co-operation with China was a major aspect of the Prime Minister's discussions with Premier Zhao, who reacted very positively, indicating that the conditions existed for Australia and China to set a good example for co-operation between countries with different social systems and different degrees of development. The results of this activity for Australian exporters are now apparent. Preliminary trade figures for the year 1984-85 issued by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in the last few weeks indicated that Australia's exports to China have jumped some 73.4 per cent and exceeded the $1 billion mark for the first time. Our exports to China were $1.056 billion dollars. China has risen from our tenth most important export market to our fifth biggest market in the space of just 12 months. The principal item remains wheat, but at just under 29 per cent it represents a smaller share than it usually does. This is not because wheat exports are falling-they are in fact higher than they ever have been over the past five years-but because there has been an across the board rise in our exports and some new exports. For example, greasy wool exports nearly trebled from $58.6m in 1983-84 to $144.4m in 1984-85; aluminium and aluminium alloys unworked quintupled from $19.1m to $102.7m, leather exports rose sixfold from $2m to $12.3m, and there are numerous examples from other industries. The most notable new export was coal, which notched up $19.5m worth of sales. These export figures are good news for the Australian economy. They represent solid business for both farmers and Australian companies and so employment opportunities for Australians. Following the February 1984 Zhao-Hawke discussions, in August that year Australia and China signed a long term agreement on economic and technical co-operation in the iron and steel industry. Further, during Senator Walsh's visit to China in October 1984 a memorandum of understanding on co-operation in coal was signed. An umbrella agreement on agricultural co-operation had been signed in May 1984, during the visit to China of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). Following on from this, the joint statement by Prime Minister Hawke and General Secretary Hu addressed the mutual interest of Australia and China in longer term economic co-operation and broadening of co-operation, and each country sought to continue to seek opportunitities for the two countries to participate in the other's growth. A key element in the Chinese Government's economic strategy is to open up its economy more to the outside world, to enlist foreign investment, technology and management expertise, and to earn foreign exchange. Special economic zones designed to encourage foreign investment have been declared, and in 1984 the Government announced a policy to open 14 coastal cities and a number of interior cities to foreign investment. Other reforms recently adopted include the introduction to urban industry of the responsibility system which has proved so successful in the countryside, an increase in provincial automony in trade matter and the development of trade investment and tax laws. The program of reforms and China's determination to modernise, make China the world's only major new market and one of the few significant economies of the world posting high growth rates. The fundamental economic policy decisions which have been taken in China in recent years are the most important determinants of the basis for expansion of trade between Australia and China. China seeks to quadruple the gross output value of industry and agriculture of 1980 by the end of the century. It wants also to quadruple the volume of foreign trade by the year 2000. To date China is surpassing its development objectives. During Mr Hu's visit, it was agreed that co-operation in iron and steel, coal and agriculture would continue, and that co-operation would be initiated in relation to all stages of the wool industry, non-ferrous metals and in the development and planning of China's transport industry. The agreement between Mr Hawke and Mr Hu has led to Australia and China developing a number of sectoral initiatives arising from the desire to ensure the commitment of both governments to develop a long term and comprehensive strategy for expanding Australia's economic and technical relations with China. The sectoral initiatives have been designed with the economic objectives of both China and Australia in mind. They are designed to meet important Chinese development goals, and in so doing, to gain access to trade with China for representatives of Australian business and industrial sectors which would not otherwise have been available. The mechanisms which have been developed to do this and the access provided under the umbrella afforded by government-to-government level contact have facilitated the development of a long term strategy for pursuing Australia's commercial and trading interests. Through the definition of this strategy, opportunities for further Australian involvement across a range of activities in China have been developed. The first initiative related to iron and steel. In February 1984 Premier Zhao and Prime Minister Hawke launched an initiative to promote closer co-operation between the Australian and Chinese iron and steel industries. A joint study group was established to examine possibilities at all levels in the iron and steel industries of both countries. This group has adopted an action orientated approach concentrating its activities on advancing developments between Australian companies and Chinese enterprises where speci- fic opportunities have been identified. Its terms of reference include specifically proposals for increased use by China of Australian steelmaking raw materials, expansion of China's steel processing based on Australian iron and steel supply, investment in joint ventures in the Chinese steel industry, technical co-operation, and Chinese investment in Australian facilities. Priority consideration was given to the opportunities which were identified, including the proposal to re-open the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, Kwinana blast furnace and the associated Koolyanobbing iron ore mine to supply pig iron to China, the possible investment by China in Hamersley's Mt Channar iron ore mine, and increases in the quantity of iron ore sales to China. My predecessor as Minister for Trade, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, Mr Lionel Bowen, signed a memorandum of understanding with China's then Minister of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade, Madam Chen Muhua, in June 1984. This agreement sets out arrangements which provide Australia with the opportunity to focus our activities more directly with China's iron and steel producers. China's Minister for Metallurgical Industry, Li Dongye, visited Australia in May 1984 and his Vice Minister, Lin Hua, came in August 1984. Both came to familiarise themselves with the capabilities of Australia's mining industry, steelmaking and technological capabilities. To reinforce the development of co-operation between Australian and Chinese iron and steel industries a program of technical assistance has been developed. The program, jointly funded by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau and the China Special Project Technical Support Facility, is the subject of a specific memorandum of understanding agreed between ADAB and China's Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade. The first stage of this program has been successfully completed. Already exports of iron and steel ingots and products have been expanding rapidly. In 1983-84 they were valued at $48m and in 1984-85 this doubled to $95.5m. Similarly exports of iron ore and concentrates rose from their already strong base by 79 per cent to $131.4m. It may also interest the House, and honourable members from South Australia, particularly the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil), that in the last financial year approximately 40 per cent of the output of crude steel from Whyalla will be exported to China. Following the visit of Mr Li Dongye in May 1984, the first shipments of manganese ore were made from Groote Eylandt. Shipments are pre- sently running at a level of around $10m per year. For 1985 it is estimated that trade in these iron and steel and related products will be valued at around $295m, an increase of 166 per cent over the two years since 1983. Negotiations between BHP and China Metallurgical Import and Export Corporation towards a long term contract on the supply of pig iron from Kwinana are continuing, as are the negotiations between Hamersley and China Metallurgical Import and Export Corporation on the proposed joint venture. As a result of the success of the iron and steel initiative similar approaches have been adopted in other sectors. Significant progress has already been made in the transport sector. Only last Friday the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, and I met with a wide range of transport industry leaders to review proposals following the mission to China led by Sir Peter Abeles. I am delighted to be able to report that there was considerable enthusi- asm within the private sector for the potential in this sector and widespread support for the government-to-government umbrella arrangements which have been put in place to facilitate the wide range of commercial possibilities which exist. The approach will now be extended to include the non-ferrous metals and minerals, coal, wool and textile industries. The potential is great indeed. Australia now has better defined export oriented economic objectives. I referred to these in some detail in my earlier ministerial statement on Australia's trade situation and policies. China has ambitious domestic modernisation plans. There is a mutual interest between these objectives which, as the 1984-85 trade statistics show, form a realistic basis for trade. Last year the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Industry examined and reported on Australia-China trade. The Government's formal response to the report will be tabled in the Senate in due course but I would like to make some comments on it now. First, the report broadly supports the thrust of the Government's approach to trading with China. Secondly, it considered it necessary to make just five recommendations and these do not call for any change in policy but urge for a continuation of the present approach. The re- commendations are: Firstly, that the Australian Government provide the necessary resources and assistance to pursue this major proposal-an integrated iron and steel venture-to its ultimate conclusion; secondly, that the Australian and Chinese governments enter into a double tax- ation agreement so as to resolve any doubts concerning the possibility of taxes being imposed in both countries; thirdly, that the Commonwealth Government raise the status of aid programs at an appropriate Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forum with a view to establishing strict guidelines covering the use of aid funds to assist commercial trade and investment ventures in developing countries; fourthly, that the Department of Trade be given the necessary resources, as required, to enable it to service effectively what may become one of Australia's major export markets; and fifthly, that the Department of Trade, as part of its China action plan, liaise with the Victorian Government in this pilot scheme-involving the marketing to China of energy intensive intermediate products-to assess the likely impact for the development of trade prospects to China and the impact such a strategy will have on Australia's local manufacturing industry. Today I shall comment on only the fourth, which is that my Department be given the necessary resources to enable it to service effectively the China market. In relation to this recommendation I have agreed to the allocation of additional resources from within the Department of Trade specifically for the purpose of promoting trade with China. This recognises the importance on our part of special efforts to co-ordinate effectively the full range of Government activity in relation to China. The approach we are developing is new in terms of traditional methods of public administration and one which I am pleased to say is working very satisfactorily. In June I announced the appointment of Mr Paul Barratt to the newly created position of Special Trade Representative with responsibility for trade with North Asia. In this capacity Mr Barratt, who has the personal rank of Ambassador, is responsible to me for the development and management of Australia's trading relationship with the People's Republic of China, Japan and the Republic of Korea. All this illustrates the Government's commitment to trade with China and the success of its policy of reallocating limited resources to areas where they will produce the greatest return. A China action plan team has been established, including a separate China section in Canberra, special China contact officers in reg- ional offices in the State capitals and a trade commissioner based in Sydney, whose specific task is to advise Australian companies on how to approach trade with China. These additional resources have enabled also the publication of a book `How to do Business with China: A Guide for Australian Firms' which has been very popular with the business community and sold out in a matter of months. A further 3,000 copies are currently being printed. My Department is also producing a series of booklets on individual Chinese provinces. A China special projects unit was established in March 1984 after the Prime Minister returned from China. This unit has the task of working with state governments, industry and unions to progress the iron and steel industry initiative launched by the Prime Minister and Premier Zhao Ziyang. Similarly, the number of trade commissioners operating in China has been expanded. There are now four trade commissioners based at the Australian Embassy in Beijing, two based at the new Australian Consulate-General in Shanghai and one based at the Australian Commission in Hong Kong and with responsibility for South China. Of course, the efforts of this group will be further enhanced by the establishment of the new Australian Trade Commission, a body designed to increase support for our exporters. One other aspect of the China action plan also deserves some attention. China is most concerned at the imbalance in trade between our two countries. It is important for Australia to ensure that our legitimate trade expansion plans are not constrained by China's legitimate concern. For this reason Australia has taken action to ensure that there is a balance of bilateral trading opportunities. We are exploring ways of improving opportunities for China in the non-sensitive areas of Australia's import market. Australia has had an import assistance program in place for some years now and has been actively involved in encouraging Australian companies to purchase Chinese crude oil both for consumption in Australia and for sale to third markets. A trial shipment of Chinese crude oil was received by a Sydney refinery in May this year. To demonstrate further our intentions of assisting China to gain access to our markets, at the 1984 Joint Trade Committee talks Australia committed itself to an import assistance program for China with a budget of $200,000. The program covers four types of assistance: Financial support and expert advice to assist China to conduct a series of displays; marketing seminars in China explaining how to sell to Australia; an agent contact program involving interviews with key importers of Chinese products to determine what further assistance they require to boost sales of China's products; and specialised market research, involving seven major studies covering spices, textiles, automotive accessories, household electrical goods and rubber and rubber products, childrenswear and menswear. I should also mention that Australia has an ongoing program of import liberalisation. China is in a good position to take advantage of this liberalisation, particularly within the textiles, clothing and footwear arrangements. I hope that this statement will indicate that it is a common wish of the governments of the People's Republic of China and Australia that Australia-China economic co-operation should be a model for co-operation between countries at different levels of development and with very different social systems. My forthcoming official visit to China will be a further step in the implementation of this wish for the benefit of both China and Australia. I will be participating in discussions with the Ministers of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade, Communications, Aviation and Railways, Metallurgical Industry, Coal Industry, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fishery and Textile Industry. I shall also be meeting officials of a number of corporations, provincial authorities in Fujian and leaders of the city of Shanghai. I hope and intend that my visit will play a part in the pattern of co-operation and goodwill that has been developed during the period of the Hawke Labor Government. Mr McVEIGH(Groom) —by leave-Once again I thank the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) for his courtesy in giving me an advance copy of his speech several hours prior to its delivery. On both sides of politics in Australia there is a clear realisation of the great importance of our relationship with the People's Republic of China. Though this has been a relatively recent development, it is solidly based, for it is rooted in our appreciation of where Australian-Chinese strong common interests lie and in a respect for differences where they occur. There can be no denying the enormous potential of the Chinese market. Recent developments are a tribute to the wisdom of China's contemporary leadership and herald that country's emergence as a major international economic power as well as a political one. The process of modernisation is a dynamic one and opens up a myriad of possibilities for increased trade and co-operation. The coalition, when it was last in government, was quick to appreciate the potential of the mutual benefits of an expanding economic and trading relationship with China. These included the extension of tariff preferences to China in 1978, the establishment of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation line of credit in 1979 and, in 1981, the signing of a protocol to the trade agreement. The line of credit has enabled China to purchase Australian capital goods and services at concessional rates, while the protocol sets out to broaden commercial ties, strengthen economic and trade relations and encourage opportunities for industrial co-operation between enterprises in both countries. In addition, in 1980 and 1981 the coalition signed major agreements with the Chinese covering such areas as agricultural exchange, technical co-operation, science and technology, and culture and education. I hope that the Minister, during his visit, will discuss the latter two matters with the Chinese authorities. I have very vivid recollections of the previous coalition Government's active encouragement of cultural exchange between our two countries. I recall the very warm reception the Australian people gave to the Entombed Warriors exhibition and our close association with the culture of the great People's Republic of China. I recall with very great pride the enormous impact that was made on the Chinese Ambassador when my then Leader, the Rt Hon. J. D. Anthony, officially opened that exhibition in Melbourne. Of course, it would be churlish to criticise this Government for the amount of time and effort it has put into trying to expand our trading relationship with China. What must be said, however, is that this Government is prone to forget what is at the basis of a trading relationship, namely, competitiveness and cost, reliability as a supplier of goods and services and the perception of mutual benefits. Major breakthroughs in doing business with the Chinese will be the same as those with any other country. Rising costs, rising interest rates, inflation, full wage indexation and the threat of industrial disputes cast doubt on whether export improvement can be achieved with any country, let alone China. While the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has devoted an enormous amount of personal attention to the Australia-China relationship, unfortunately he is in danger of being carried away by his excessive perception of `mateship'. The Prime Minister's all-consuming faith in special relationships reflects considerably naivety. The classic example of this was the extraordinary effort the Prime Minister put into trying to reach an agreement with the Chinese regarding the Pilbara iron ore and Kwinana steel deals. Clearly, an agreement on these deals was the sort of psychological fillip the Government badly needed-due to the depreciation of the dollar, the burgeoning current account deficit and increasing doubts over the nation's long term trading outlook. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister simply blew it. His constant exaggerations of the progress of the deals served only to make the Chinese back off, in the hope of attaining a better deal. The Prime Minister has conveyed the impression that the Australian Government would bend over backwards to clinch these deals, irrespective of commercial judgment. The Prime Minister was rebuffed, he was embarrassed, and the negotiations have reached a dead end. Months later, no definite dates have been set for the opening of the Kwinana steel mill or for the development of the Mount Channar ore deposits. I note that the Minister for Trade indicated that he will have printed another 3,000 copies of the Department of Trade handbook called `How To Do Business With China: A Guide For Australian Firms'. I can understand why he should do that. It is a great pity that the Prime Minister failed to heed the warnings spelt out in the Department's handbook. Possibly the Prime Minister will get several copies to carry around with him. The Prime Minister appears to have fallen victim to one of the principal warnings that the booklet makes, which is that leaking details of the negotiations just as they approach finality can only help in their attempts to drive a harder bargain. Moreover, the handbook emphasises that, to the Chinese, impatience is a major character weakness. If they perceive it in a negotiating partner they will attempt to exert pressure by dragging out the talks. The Prime Minister just did not understand that. The bottom line is that in dealing with the Chinese we have to be realistic about what we offer each other. Australia's expertise in agricultural and mineral technology is highly regarded in China. Co-operation in iron and steel, coal and agriculture must be encouraged. However, one of the most basic determinants of Australia's development of trade with China remains that country's own economic performance and there are very significant contraints on this. Also China is concerned at the trade imbalance, which is very much in Australia's favour. Unless this Government attempts to show some sensitivity to Chinese concerns, there is the possibility that we will see some adverse effects on overall trade relations. When the Minister visits China next week he will, among other things, have to satisfy the People's Republic that Australia is willing to import goods from China as well as export to it. Furthermore, we must not repeat the mistakes we have made in our relationship with Japan, where we have now largely achieved the status of a quarry due to our institutional rigidities-Government rigidity, wages rigidity, labour rigidity and bureaucratic rigidity. We have to join in the exciting economic growth of the East Asian region and China. We have to look at the potential for the development of joint industrial and processing projects which would serve as a springboard for our involvement in the wider region. China could be a key for this. But before this can happen, we have to abandon the institutionalised rigidities that have paralysed the Government and the industrial system. The Australian economy must become more competitive and more flexible, if we are to prosper and maintain our way of life. We cannot cocoon ourselves from the rest of the world. The ongoing health of the economy will hinge on Australia's success not only in holding but also in expanding its current share of world export markets. Yet, in an increasingly competitive world market and with the threat of trade wars developing, Australia is faced with rising inflation, higher wages and higher interest rates-hardly the conditions necessary for a sustainable recovery in our export earnings. To meet the challenges that now confront us, we need to reserve years of government growth and interference. We need to unshackle the economy; to decentralise and to deregulate; to give entrepreneurial talent its head by rewarding the risk taker and allowing the market to make its judgment. Instead, all we get are gimmicks. The economic and tax summits were gimmicks. They followed a similar formula-that is, to exaggerate the ills of the country or tax system and claim that they are of an unprecedented nature and that they require new or revolutionary devices to deal with them. The fact is that there is not truth in either of these claims, for the situation the Labor Government faces does not differ qualitatively from other situations confronted by previous governments. What was required was for the Government to make the tough and rational decisions which would put Australia on a more competitive footing, not gimmicks. Above all, what is required is a real and sincere effort to put Australia's economic house in order. This will not be done through weak summits and Budgets or closed door deals with powerful interest groups masquerading as consensus. It will be done through the necessary and sometimes hard decisions which the people's elected representatives have to make in looking after the prosperity of all Australians. It will be done by encouraging private enterprise to go out and explore markets such as those in the People's Republic. A vital aspect of any country to country export programs should be the active encouragement of private enterprise. Certainly these are countries, as in the case of the People's Republic, which is largely a centralised, controlled economy, where there may be preference for Government facilitated programs. I was a little surprised at the Minister's statement in that he gave no emphasis to encouraging private enterprise to go and develop markets. On page 9 of his statement he referred to widespread support for government to government umbrella arrangements. On page 11 of the statement his fifth recommendation was that there be a trial pilot scheme with the Victorian Government concerning energy-intensive intermediate projects, but there was no mention whatsoever of pilot schemes involving private enterprise. It is the firm belief of the Opposition that the Government should ensure, as far as possible, that private enterprise is encouraged to take the lead, to stand on its own feet, and encouraged to introduce private enterprise philosophies wherever possible. Private enterprise can do it. Indicative of this is the fact that, with a minimum of government help and interference, the Darling Downs family firm of O'Phee Industries-I know there are many similar firms all over Australia-through its own initiative has obtained a long term contract worth many millions of dollars for its semi-trailers. It will increase the work force in its town of Pittsworth from 80 to 150. But, more importantly, there will be a mutually beneficial relationship between the People's Republic and Australia because Australia will be sending its own personnel to the People's Republic to establish a factory and workshop and teach the local people how to build these semi-trailers. I am disappointed that the Minister did not indicate a preference for the Government's establishing private enterprise associations with the People's Republic. I also note the recent statement of the leader of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation in which he indicated that it is absolutely necessary in exporting goods from Australia, including cereals, to ensure that we maintain very high standards and give that country the type of wheat which it desires. Finally, I hope that the visit by the Minister to the People's Republic will play a part in the developing pattern of co-operation and goodwill that has been developed over the years, firstly, by the Whitlam Government and then by the Fraser-Anthony Government and also during the period of the Hawke Labor Government. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Taxation: Health Insurance To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; The Humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin,Mr Blunt,Mr Dobie,Mr Fife,Mr Grace,Mr Keogh,Mr Kerin,Mr Allan Morris,Mr Nehl and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble Petition of the South Australian Country Women's Association Incorporated and the Undersigned shall showeth: The necessity to restore the concessional price of fuel in rural areas-without which there will be increased freight and production costs. Your Petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will restore concessional price of fuel in rural areas for the benefit of all Australians. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Bilney,Mr Downer and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that exhorbitant fuel costs are grossly distorting the cost of living in remote areas and therefore requests that the fuel subsidy be re-introduced for remote areas. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Wright. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: We as parents of the Minlaton and District Kindergarten children and concerned members of the community deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini-budget as the proposal adversely affects young families, women's employment prospects and children's development in their most formative years. We urge you to reverse proposals for cuts in children's services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Bilney,Mr Duncan and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: ``That we disagree with the proposed cuts in funding for pre-school children's services believing that in so doing you are affecting children's development in their most formative years.'' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: * they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, including farms, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; * the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; * any capital gains that might result when owners of small enterprises finally sell these assets are not ``windfall gains'', but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business or farm by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business or farm to create growth and jobs; * the owners of small businesses and farms often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell these assets to sustain them in retirement; Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Cadman,Mr Ewen Cameron and Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to Preschools and Day Care Services are a reversal of A.L.P. policy to make child care services available to all at an affordable cost. Further, that the fee rises arising from the cuts will cause great hardship to the majority of families using these services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to Preschools and Day Care Services are a reversal of A.L.P. policy to make child care services available to all at an affordable cost. Further, that the fee rises arising from the cuts will cause great hardship to the majority of families using these services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the May expenditure savings which introduced funding cuts to children's services will cause hardship to many low and middle income earners. Families relying on these vital services will suffer, as will workers within the industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Maher. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to pre-schools and day care services are a reversal of the A.L.P. policy to make child care services available to all at an affordable cost. Further, that the fee rises arising from the cuts will cause great hardship to the majority of families using these services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: -Capital Gains Tax -Hidden Death Tax described as ``Capital Gains Tax after death'' -Gift Tax -Increased Company Tax -Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately reject these tax proposals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Braithwaite and Mr Ian Cameron. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament Assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House set aside a National Park for these horses and ensure that killing of feral animals be undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners in duty bound ever pray. by Mr Burr,Mr Donald Cameron and Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they are opposed to the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper for the reform of the Australian Tax System in so far as they relate to the imposition of further capital gains and wealth taxes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to reject any proposal to increase the burden of capital gains and wealth taxes on the Australian people. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging rural residents with regard to access to the Arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organisations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country areas. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron and Mr Katter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: That we the undersigned are greatly concerned by, and totally opposed to proposed taxation changes and the introduction of new taxes, value added tax, consumption tax or retail turnover tax, capital gains tax, death duties, gift tax or inheritance tax. We wish you to repudiate any or all of these taxes in part or full. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Commonwealth Government of Australia will protect our society from these taxes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that there is a need to end the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery and other anomalies existing in sales tax law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this tax should be replaced by a broad-based consumption tax with a uniform ad valorem rate, without any exemptions whatsoever. by Dr Harry Edwards and Mr O'Keefe. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of A.B.C. listeners and viewers showeth that the autonomy and non-commercial independent broadcasting services of the A.B.C. are in jeopardy because the A.B.C. is currently having to bear additional costs involved in the Aussat Satellite operation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: 1. The government restores $20 million to the A.B.C.'s budget for 1985-86 to ensure that the services the A.B.C. provides the Australian Public are maintained and improved, particularly in terms of education and rural programs, and that A.B.C. staff are not needlessly retrenched. 2. The government will not introduce corporate sponsorship or any form of advertising into the A.B.C. since this would destroy the independence and autonomy of the A.B.C. The non-commercial independent broadcasting service provided by the A.B.C. is fundamental to Australian democracy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21 March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's bill for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill to repeal the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to include private psychologists services in medicare, when those services are conducted by clinical psychologists recognised as qualified by the Clinical Board of the Australian Psychological Society. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That all steps be taken to prevent the continuous erosion of the rights of the holders of freehold land. Your petitioners draw to the attention of Parliament the denigration of freehold rights as practised in N.S.W. and calls on the Parliament to enact overriding legislation to allow full and proper compensation to all Australians where Government requires the use of private property and traditional rights attached thereto. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia draw to the attention of the House- That we should co-operate with America to prevent a nuclear war. That we should have a stronger Alliance with America pursuing a common goal of sensible and controlled nuclear arms development. That we should have a referendum to establish the desire of the Australian people to have a more definite and secure commitment in our defence relationship with America. That the referendum should read that Australia maintain and strengthen its treaties with the United States of America even though that may result in separate and different agreements between the U.S., New Zealand and Australia. Your petitioners therefore request that the above referendum be taken to the Australian people to vote on. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of Australia respectfully show their desire that your Honourable House (The Government) act immediately to raise the Tertiary Education Assistance allowance to the level of the Unemployment Benefit. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the removal of the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme to certain country locations has placed an additional burden on rural communitites and will prove ruinous in the long term. Your petitions therefore humbly pray that the Government undertake to review this scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the Government's stated intention to hand over to the Mulitjula community ownership of Ayers Rock and Uluru National Park, which have until now belonged to all the people of Australia. We believe that Ayers Rock and the park are part of the natural heritage of Australia and should be retained by the crown on behalf of all living and future generations of Australians. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House oppose any action that would give ownership of these national treasures to any single group in the community. by Mr Everingham. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that Department of Defence personnel employed at Garden Island Naval Base, Western Australia receive no financial recompense for using private motor vehicles for attending the remote locality at which they work. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that: 1. Garden Island Naval Base be declared an `isolated locality' by the Public Service Board. 2. Transport Allowance be payable to Department of Defence Personnel working permanently on the island. 3. Such Transport Allowance to be calculated on the basis of the distance by road of the island from the nearest residential area, Rockingham. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Ms Fatin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. We are completely dissatisfied with the pricing policy of petrol in this country. 2. We are aware that it has an adverse effect on the living standards of the average wage earner of this country. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will propose and pass a motion that the price of petrol be reduced by 3c a litre in line with a commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign. by Mr Goodluck. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the frequent and substantial increase in the price of petrol and diesel fuel. 2. That we are aware that these price increases have an adverse effect on the living standards of the averge Australian wage earner. 3. That increases in fuel prices adds to farm costs and further reduces the average income per farmer which has already fallen to one-third of national earnings. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Government will immediately reduce the price of petrol by three (3) cents per litre in line with the commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign and take all possible action to prevent further increases occurring. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the frequent and substantial increase in the price of petrol and diesel fuel. 2. That we are aware that these price increases have an adverse effect on the living standards of the average Australian wage earner. 3. That increases in fuel prices adds to farm costs and further reduces the average income per farmer which has already fallen to one-third of national earnings. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Government will immediately reduce the price of petrol by three (3) cents per litre in line with commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australian during the 1983 electgion campaign and take all possible action to prevent further increases occurring. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the pricing of petrol in this country; 2. That under a Labor Government petrol prices have continued to rise excessively with Government decisions adding over 8c. per litre to the price of petrol in some country areas; 3. The proposed consumption tax could lead to a further rise of 6c. per litre; and 4. The high cost of petrol discriminates against country residents who rely on their cars for essential communication and transport. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government honour the commitment given by the Prime Minister during the 1983 election campaign to reduce petrol prices by 3c. per litre. Further we strongly urge the Government to adopt a petrol pricing policy which does not cause unnecessary rises in the cost of petrol. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers, parents and students working in and for the interests of government schools and TAFE colleges showeth that: 1. We oppose the proposed cuts of 75 teaching and 40 ancillary positions in ACT government schools and 28 teaching positions in ACT TAFE colleges. 2. We deplore the cuts to public education and the harm caused to the opportunities of thousands of Canberra's youth. 3. We call on the Commonwealth Government to honour its primary obligation to public education and its commitments to increase participation and equity in education by not implementing staffing cuts in ACT government schools and TAFE colleges. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully request: 1. That the government increase the proportion of Australian food aid going to areas outside central government control. The present formula is to give 1 tonne of food to non-government areas for every 3 tonnes to the central government. We request Mr Hayden to reverse this ratio in order to reflect the actual needs. 2. That the government use every means available to pressure the Ethiopian government to allow international aid, freely given, to pass freely to the non-government areas particularly Tigray and Eritrea. 3. In view of Sudanese support of Ethiopian refugees, and the drought in that country, now as severe as that in Ethiopia, we request that Australian aid to the Sudan be substantially increased. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned request the Commonwealth and State co-operation and financial commitment to: (a) Providing more funds to Colleges of Advanced Education and to other Tertiary institutions for as a result in these cuts has led to reductions in the staff that has disabled our learning abilities at this College, and (b) not to introduce, in any form, any Tertiary Education fees for Tertiary Colleges in Australia. In the interests of us and other students both present and future we humbly request these cost cutting measures be re-assessed. And your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will respond to our plea. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That we are concerned at the proposed withdrawal of Federal Funding from pre-school education. This is 20% of the pre-school budget. Thus it will be difficult to maintain existing programmes and impossible to provide pre-school education for those children not receiving it now. We urge the Commonwealth Government of Australia to maintain this funding. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That on 28th February, 1985, the Senate passed a resolution that read: (i) that Australia, as a member of the United Nations should fulfil its obligation to promote and encourage respect of human rights and fundamental freedom, and should support the European Parliament's Resolution in respect of the Baltic States. (ii) that in order to do so the Australian Government should, on its own initiative, and by seeking the support of like-minded governments, bring the question of human rights and self-determination for the Baltic States before all appropriate forums of the United Nations, and especially before the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and, (iii) that the Department of Foreign Affairs should be directed to take all necessary steps in order to implement this Resolution. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members and the House of Representatives will concur with that resolution. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's proposal to bring about a reduction in the amount payable under the present Family Allowance Scheme, that the House of Representatives assembled oppose such a move, on the evidence of its impact upon the family unit. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to restore payments to the former level. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The northern suburbs of Wollongong have a community of interest with Sydney as well as Wollongong. That at the present time the northern suburbs of Wollongong are officially located outside the Sydney Metroplitan television area. That at the present time the area is unable to receive adequate television reception from the Sydney stations. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government act to include the northern suburbs of Wollongong within the Sydney Television Area. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia. Respectfully showeth that the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 5. That the provision of essential services be maintained free from industrial disruption. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Webster. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Veterans' Entitlements Bill dated May 1985 is taking a fair ``earned service'' from the men and women of Australia, who kept this country free so that Governments of today could have the freedom to be able to Govern fairly. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensure that the previous legislation in respect of War Veterans' and their dependants entitlements be restored. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the undersigned Electors of South Australia showeth: That whereas the Federal Labor Government is to make funding cuts in pre-school education to the serious detriment of children during their formative years. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Express your strong opposition to the funding cuts, urge the reinstatement of these funds in the 1985 Federal Budget and in the event of no reinstatement, urge the State Government to make up the shortfall. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Bilney. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned ex-service persons in the electorate of Lyons in Tasmania respectfully showeth that: (i) The welfare of Australian veterans and their dependants should be kept out of bureaucratic costing exercises. (ii) The Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 does not represent the actual needs of ex-service persons, especially the abolition of dependants' pensions, the alteration to the assessment of rates of disability pensions and the alteration to Section 47-the onus of proof. (iii) As ex service persons who served their country in time of need, and now apparently forgotten by governments, we are deeply concerned that our organisations were not consulted before the amendments were made. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. The controversial parts of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 be repealed. 2. That ex-service organisations be given the chance of a ``Summit'' type meeting, as accorded management and trade unions, at which to express their opinions. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Westbury in Tasmania respectfully showeth: 1. That we recognise the constant need for adequate funding for the Special Education Programme of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. 2. That such funding is essential for this rural area of Tasmania if our children are to enjoy the same degree of special training available in urban areas. 3. That we are concerned by the recent cuts in the Special Education Funding being made available to Tasmania. We therefore pray that the Federal Government reconsiders its reduction in the Special Education Programme funding in the forthcoming Budget determinations in the interest of our children's future. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully request that your Honourable House (the Government) act immediately to implement the provision of the Channel 0/28 multi-cultural television service to the Albury/Wodonga and surrounding districts. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. The Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of residents of Nhulunbuy, Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, draw to the attention of the House our objection at being discriminated against by an abuse of the Commonwealth N.T. Aboriginal Land Rights Act and complementary N.T. legislation wherein the Northern Land Council on behalf of traditional owners has the right to restrict access in and out of Aboriginal Land (Nhulunbuy). Residents of Nhulunbuy are currently being discriminated against by the Northern Land Council by an abuse of powers vested in them under the above legislation by restricting the issue of permits and placing unreasonable conditions on such permits which allow access in and out of Nhulunbuy. Residents of Nhulunbuy have always abided by the terms and conditions of the permit system and to the best knowledge available no resident of Nhulunbuy has been fined for violating these conditions. Your petitioners so pray that the House obtain an assurance from the Northern Land Council that residents granted unrestricted access by permit, in and out of Gove upon the official opening and until the official closing of the track by the police each dry season, failing this we ask that the legislation be amended in order that we are not discriminated against in the future. by Mr Everingham. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Shire of Singleton respectfully sheweth that the Commonwealth Government has resolved that the Army School of Infantry currently located at Singleton, may be relocated to a site in the Bathurst-Orange district in conjunction with the Army School of Artillery. We hereby petition the Commonwealth Government to retain the School of Infantry at Singleton and to review its decision not to consider Singleton Army Base as the site for the Combined Army Schools Complex. Should the School of Infantry be relocated from Singleton there will be a substantial social and economic loss to the Shire of Singleton and the Hunter Valley Region. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House- Retain the School of Infantry at Singleton and review its decision not to consider Singleton Army Base as the site for the Combined Army Schools Complex. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fitzgibbon. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives Assembled: The Petition shows: That certain citizens of the State of Victoria are concerned by the Australian Government's failure to adequately fund the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The ABC, both in radio broadcasting and television, has in spite of a history of severe government cutbacks over the past years, given Australia wide broadcasting of excellence and balance. Your petitioners therefore pray that the present Government take positive steps in the next Budget to halt the destruction of ABC programing, without forcing the Corporation to introduce commercial advertising, as we believe this will certainly destroy the Australian Broadcasting Corportation's quality and independence. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lamb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of Cowper respectfully sheweth- That the introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties would not be economically beneficial for Australia, as any introduction of such taxes would: First adversely affect small and medium sized businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; Secondly, disadvantage the Australian economy by stifling employment in particular, which is heavily reliant on growth in small and medium sized businesses; Thirdly, any capital gains that might result when owners of small and medium sized businesses finally sell the business are not ``windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; and Finally, the owners of small and medium sized businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their busness to sustain them in retirement. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives oppose any attempt to introduce any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties, which would be to the detriment of the economic well-being of the nation, and repeal any existing capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties, which are to the economic disadvantage of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Fisher respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains tax Hidden Death tax described as ``Capital Gains tax after death'' Gift Tax Increased Company tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to address the crisis in rural Australia adequately. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(3.54) —In 1974, that great Prime Minister, Whitlam- Mr Sharp —Who? Mr HUNT —Whitlam. In 1974 he uttered his now infamous comment to a rally of angry farmers: `You've never had it so good'. His comment enraged the rural community. In 1985 the same lack of understanding has reared its ugly head. This Government has followed the same discriminatory path of the Whitlam Labor Government which for three years savaged the rural communities of Australia. The concern of Australian farmers has reached a stage where more than 40,000 rallied here last month demanding a fair go from this Government. This time the Prime Minister said: `Wait until the Budget'. The Budget has come and gone and farmers are still waiting. Their patience is running out. Farmers produce over 40 per cent of Australia's export income. Agriculture continues to dominate export earnings, despite the savage effects of the four-year drought. Effective assistance for primary industry has dropped twice as quickly as for manufacturing. Farmers are not as heavily subsidised or protected as most other groups in the community. Budgetary outlays for agriculture have fallen dramatically in the past 10 years, while some departmental outlays have increased by 630 per cent. Mr Hawker —How much? Mr Cobb —How much? Mr HUNT —By 630 per cent. Yet in the farmers' hour of need and distress the Labor Government has let them down again. The sugar industry, for instance, is the most depressed industry in Australia at present. The cane growers in Queensland and northern New South Wales have been plunged into poverty. Yet the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech did not use even one syllable to acknowledge their problem. The cosmetic changes in the Budget will do very little to ease the cost pressures on agriculture and the economic problems besetting the sugar, dairying, grain, meat, vine fruits, any other rural industry or the rural community. The Budget has not honoured the undertaking made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at the 1 July rally. The Prime Minister said: We will prepare a package in the Budget that will significantly reduce the impact of costs upon the farm sector particularly with fuel costs. All the Hawke Labor Government has done to fulfil this undertaking has been to restore the long-standing fuel excise rebate in full to off-road farm users of distillate from 1 November. The excise rebate was introduced by a Liberal-National government years ago. It stood the test of time until the Hawke Labor Government began its rural rampage. Farmers will not quickly forget that the Hawke Government's freeze of the rebate robbed farmers of $55m. The Government's full restoration of the rebate is expected to save farmers $23m this financial year. However, the duty imposed on di-ammonium phosphate fertiliser will cost farmers $26m, giving a $26m revenue windfall to the Government in a full year. The only other worthwhile concession has been the removal of the tariff on grain harvesters, saving an expected $11m a year. It is a long overdue decision. The total Budget savings to farmers are estimated at $46m for a full year. This is pin money compared to the $442m ripped off farmers by the end of this financial year by the Hawke Labor Government since 1983. Between March 1983 and the mini-Budget of May 1985 the Hawke Government's budgetary decisions have cost all rural Australians at least $337m. By the end of this financial year the figure will have risen to $650m. These figures do not include estimates of the cost of the discriminatory assets test that has affected the rural community and aged farmers more than any other sector of the community, nor the cost of record real interest rates due to the size of government deficits. By the end of this financial year the bill to farmers will have risen to $442m. I seek leave of the House to table a document to prove that position. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Is leave granted? Mr Kerin —I am prepared to allow this document to be tabled. I indicate that it is the honourable member's own estimates. Leave granted. Mr HUNT —I thank the House. I would be interested to see whether those figures can be proved incorrect. No section of the community is less protected, less assisted, or bled more by parasitic devices protecting some notable secondary industries and an indexed, inflexible wages system than the agricultural export industries of Australia. The wages system, the range of taxation devices, and the protective tariffs have all systematically transferred resources away from the export sector of the economy and the rural industries in particular. The Australian Labor Party has viciously attacked the farm sector at a time when farmers are still suffering from the effects of a four-year drought, when average farm income is one-third of the average wage of over $20,000, when the return to farm capital is 1.5 per cent, and farm costs have risen 44 per cent in five years against a rise of only 12 per cent in farm gate prices. It has attacked the farm sector at a time when the farm debt has risen 121 per cent in seven years to more than $6 billion, when real interest rates are at a record high, and the average cost of the manufacturing tariff to farmers is $6,000 to $9,000 per annum. No doubt these figures are disputed, but the National Farmers Federation is satisfied that that is what it is costing the farmers today. It is time this Government gave substantial relief to the farm and fishing sector from the unsympathetic Budget policies it has imposed. Instead, this sector will get a 2.4c a litre reduction for diesel against a general fuel rise of more than 10c a litre since January this year. Where is the increase in funding for rural adjustment and debt reconstruction? Surely there will be a great need for it in the sugar industry? Perhaps the Government will have a separate Budget allocation-I hope it will-for the dairying industry and for so many farmers who do not face any future as a result of their circumstances today. If the Government believes that this is a significant package for farmers it is badly and sadly mistaken. Farmers have been short changed. That was the National Farmers Federation's official assessment of this Budget. If the Government introduces a capital gains tax it can expect the full wrath of the rural community. There is a crisis in rural Australia now. This Budget will not address that problem. Even the lower estimated deficit will not guarantee lower interest rates. Monetary policies are being used to keep interest rates high to prop up artificially the ailing Australian dollar. If the unions have their way and refuse devaluation discounting, we will see a rural disaster of major proportions. It is high time the Government recognised that it has robbed the farm and rural communities in its 29 months of office. It has made no real attempt to redress its actions in this Budget. The 2.4c reduction of farm fuel taxes was a step in the right direction, but those taxes had forced up the cost of a litre of fuel by 10c to 12c in the more remote areas of Australia. Mr Braithwaite —Who forced it up? Mr HUNT —The policies of this Government forced it up. The next step in cutting fuel costs which should have been taken in this Budget is the removal of the indexation of the fuel excise and the restoration of the fuel freight equalisation scheme. What a sneaky way to raise revenue by indexing the excise to the consumer price index. It would take an incredibly sneaky mind to work out that scheme. Every six months, up it goes. We are facing an inflation rate which the Budget Papers talk of as being over 8 per cent. If there is no full discounting in the national wage case, we can bet that that rate will go into double digits. We will see once again the indexation ratchet putting up the excise on fuel. The centralised system of fixing wages must be loosened to give employers and employees the right to bargain for their working conditions beyond the minimum wage. The National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia remain steadfast in their opposition to any new form of capital taxation which would largely undermine the already tenuous incentives for primary production. The delayed $104m repayment of wheat levies to growers through the Wheat Finance Fund in this Budget is characteristic of this Government's contemptible attitude to farmers. These repayments should have been made last year, but because of budgetary circumstances the Government decided to hang on to the farmers' money. What a way to treat wheat farmers, who have been struggling against the cost-price squeeze that has driven the marginal growers practically out of existence. Now more than ever these industries need a government which is sensitive to their plight. Labor once again has dismally failed the primary producers and the people of Australia. The rural sector of Australia has undoubtedly written off the Labor Party and the rural sector has written off the Labor Government. There is no question about that. It is essential, therefore, that the coalition parties pursue policies when returned to government which will restore stability and security to Australia's most important export earning sector. These policies will include the implementation of macroeconomic policies to improve our export competitiveness, with a reduction of government expenditure in real terms and a progressive move towards balanced Budgets. One of the keys to improved competitiveness and a significant lowering of unemployment will be the abandonment of the centralised indexed wages system, giving flexibility and an opportunity for employees and employers to opt out of the system with enforceable agreements. We will need a wages policy which gives due consideration to the capacity of the economy and specific industries to pay. There must be a reduction in the protection of secondary industries on a predictable, steady but certain timetable. An incoming coalition government will need to restore those justified fiscal incentives that previous coalition governments have extended to encourage investment in agriculture. There must be significant cuts in taxes on imposts such as fuel and the removal of necessary regulations, interventions and government charges such as the export inspection charges. Special emphasis must be given to rural research, product promotion and marketing. We need a far more aggressive and concerted effort with the United States of America and Japan and other sympathetic governments to bring pressure to bear on the European Economic Community to adopt a more rational agricultural trading policy. It is absolutely essential that more pressure be brought to bear on the Commissioner when he comes to Australia next month. There is a need for a more positive and aggressive approach to increasing our market opportunities for agricultural products on international markets. Unless a determined effort is made to improve the domestic economic climate for agriculture, Australia will go into the next century as a Third World country having thrown away its opportunities. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.10) —I must report that I feel as though I have been attacked by a woolly rug. We got from the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) today the same tired old stuff, a repeat of some of the farm lobby's favourite lines and a tabling of some pretty shonky figures. The Opposition talks of crisis in rural Australia. What Opposition members do not seem to appreciate is that crisis is defined in the dictionary as a turning point-the turning away from danger and disease. This is precisely where we are at. The Hawke Government is committed to making sure that the rural sector does turn away from danger-from the danger of simple solutions to the cost-price squeeze, which is complex; from the danger of restrictive marketing arrangements in industries like the dairy industry and from the danger of flirting with quick fix solutions that hook the sector on to continuing government interference. Moreover, the Government is committed to making sure that the rural sector turns away from the disease of the bungling of the divided conservative parties which has characterised their efforts in the past. They bungled the economy; they bungled trade policies, they bungled primary industry policy-if they ever had one-and they did not even recognise the need to provide integrated rural policies which cater for the needs of all rural Australians. It is they who set the conditions over the past three decades for a progressive deterioration in the economic viability of the rural sector. The rural sector has realised that the parties in opposition are shams, and that is why they will stay in opposition. They now talk of failure. What they have failed to appreciate, and what their narrow, power-grabbing, born to rule mentality will ensure that they continue to fail to appreciate, is that Labor is good for rural Australia. No wonder they are panicking. Cockies Corner is panicking because of the success of the Hawke Government's rural policies, of its economic management, of its endeavours in the international marketing scene, of its reform of statutory marketing authorities and of its specific commodity policies. I will refer to some specific points and let the Australian rural community and Australians generally make their own decision as to who is responsible for the difficult times being faced by the rural sector. Let them make their own judgment as to which Party will overcome these difficulties. Let them judge whether our policies and actions, which recognise the reality of the cost-price squeeze, are appropriate for rural Australia. Let them judge that we need to be concerned about not only cost but also prices and our long term productive base. First of all, let us look at economic management. When the Treasurer (Mr Keating) brought in a Budget deficit of under $5 billion one could hear a pin drop; Opposition members were devastated. These are the people who gave us import parity fuel pricing. Do honourable members opposite really say that they would abandon import parity pricing? Do they say that they would wipe out the float? Would they go for tariff reform; will they let the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) have a go on tariffs? That will be the day, when the two parties opposite say that they are actually going to do something about these things that are supposed to be costing the rural sector so much. It is one thing to criticise, but who walked around the land praising import parity pricing? It was Mr Anthony, the former Leader of the National Party. Who gave us McEwenism and high tariffs? It was the former Leader of the National Party. Do not tell me that the coalition parties are going over to the dry side. It would be funny if they were actually to promise to do anything about these matters about which they are whingeing and complaining. An economic growth rate of over 4.5 per cent in 1985-86 brings the cumulative growth rate over the past three years to 14.7 per cent-the highest three-year growth performance since the three years to 1972-73. That means jobs in the country. We see an inflation rate of 8 per cent and an increase in the non-farm gross domestic product deflator of 7 per cent. This is the same as the average for the last two years and compares with an average of 11 per cent in the three years to 1982-83. It is the lowest three-year inflation rate since 1972-73. We are bringing inflation down. Mr Fraser and Mr Anthony put inflation up. This Budget will bring interest rates down. There is a growth in expenditure of 8.4, per cent in nominal terms; the lowest since 1978-79-in real terms an increase of 1.3 per cent, the lowest since 1979-80. This has resulted in a reduction in the ratio of outlays to GDP from 30.8 to 29.8 per cent, also the lowest reduction since 1979-80. There has been a reduction in the deficit by $1,827m to $4.9 billion of from 3.3 per cent of GDP to 2.1 per cent. That is the largest nominal reduction in the deficit ever and the greatest reduction as a proportion of GDP since 1979-80. That will bring interest rates down. The legacy left by Big Mal is record international debt. He took the international debt up from $21 billion to $39 billion in seven years. That is why we are saddled with debt and that is why the Treasurer has to find $6 billion in the Budget. He has to pay off the debt that Big Mal gave us, because he always wanted to support the dollar. He did not have enough wit to float the dollar and help the farmers. According to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the gross benefit of floating the dollar totals about $1 561m in a full year. Mr Beddall —How much? Mr KERIN —The benefits of floating the dollar totals $1,561m in a full year. Let us look at the whole matter of farm costs. I refer to the index of fuel prices paid by farmers. Do honourable members know by how much it went up in 1983-84? It went up by 8 per cent. This year it will go up by between 6 and 8 per cent. In 1979-80, under Mr Fraser, Mr Anthony and Mr Sinclair, it went up by 40 per cent. The index increased by 25 per cent in 1980-81 and by 27 per cent in 1978-79. We had this great explosion in fuel prices and those opposite supervised it. Doug Anthony actually went around the land saying what a good thing import parity pricing was. Members of the Opposition still do not have the guts to say that they will walk away from it, yet they criticise us about fuel prices. Mr Ian Cameron —That is our policy. Mr KERIN —That is your policy. Ian Cameron-Why don't you walk off it? Mr KERIN —This is really funny; the honourable member is saying: `Don't do as I do, do as I say'. That is the proposition being put by the honourable member for Maranoa. He is saying that if they get back they will keep import parity pricing. In 1983-84 the index of total prices paid by farmers rose by 8 per cent and this year it has risen about 6 per cent. Under good old Malcolm and the good old National Party it rose in 1980-81 by 15 per cent. In 1979-80 it rose by 12 per cent; in 1981-82, 11 per cent; and in 1982-83, 11 per cent. This shows how these blokes opposite operated. They just about wrecked the economy. They increased unemployment in one year by 250,000 people. They gave us an economy with the biggest deficit ever; the highest unemployment since the Depression, a massive overseas debt and the magnificent import parity pricing policy that the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) defends and yet they have the gall to say that they can manage the economy better. That is absolute nonsense. Let us get down to the nitty-gritty and look at some of the coalition parties' commodity policies. What did they ever do for the beef and sheep meat industries apart from the meat substitution scandal and their failure to act on meat industry reform? What did they do apart from their international posturing that got them nowhere? They would never do a darned thing. The National Party threw its great line to the farmers, but the Liberal Party did not have a policy at all; its 1972 platform said the same as it did in 1984. Perhaps I should say that the 1984 platform said the same as that of 1972. The Liberal Party is devoid of rural policy ideas. It had a council meeting recently and it put in a few motherhood phrases because it realised that there was a bit of a problem in the bush. But it has no idea. The National Party hardly has a policy either. The honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) came up with a wish list before the last election and, to his credit, he actually applied his mind to trying to concoct some policies. There were about 13 specifics in a rather funny, convoluted document. Honourable members opposite did nothing for the beef and sheep industry and did not reform the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. Mr Hunt —We reopened the Japanese beef market. Whitlam lost it. Mr KERIN —The Japanese beef market is an old classic. Honourable members opposite run around the bush with all of this nonsense about the percentage share of the Japanese beef market. Poor old Doug went up there in 1977-78 and the Americans did a deal on diaphragm beef outside of quota. That is why Australia's percentage share of the Japanese beef market went down. They did not even know what happened. They are marvellous on trade, I really must say. We will put aside Joh's recent great deal that lost us the New Zealand contract for sugar. Let us look at the International Sugar Agreement. In 1977, in making the International Sugar Agreement, the Opposition kept out the European Economic Community. The Opposition did not want it in. What did honourable members opposite do about the long term wheat agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? The only country in the world that does not have a long term wheat agreement with the USSR is Australia, because the Opposition decided to put on trade sanctions over Afghanistan. Honourable members opposite are very good on trade. They have wrecked sugar, beef and wheat and, if they got into power again, they would do worse. It got to the stage where the EEC would not even talk to them. They were so full of their own bluff and bluster and this whole idea of kicking people in the shins that the EEC would not even talk to them. At least we can talk to the EEC. We have reformed the AMLC. We have brought in the Australian Research and Development Corporation and set up a policy council. We are reforming that industry. We brought in a meat marketing package and we have a deal with the EEC on beef in the Asian-Pacific region. We have made the export inspection service efficient for the first time. We did not wreck the whole international trade reputation by allowing a meat substitution scandal to take place. We have largely achieved a single meat inspection service. Let us look at wool. Honourable members opposite are pretty good on wool, I must give them that. The members of the razor gang tried to wipe out the Australian Wool Testing Authority; that is how bright they were. Nixon was on the razor gang and he tried to wipe out the Wool Testing Authority, which was absolutely essential for the international reputation of our wool. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) referred to the Whitlam Government. That Government was good for the farmers as well. That Government introduced a minimum reserve price for the wool industry, supported by government loans of up to $350m. The Australian wool industry is in such good standing today because of the Whitlam Government. Honourable members opposite know that and they are not game to admit it. Every time the subject of wool promotion came up, there was a freeze. The razor gang froze it for three years back in 1977. The Opposition was not prepared to put wool promotion on a rational basis, as we have done. We are not just giving them $20m now; it is based on the wool clip and it is up to $29.6m. The Opposition was not prepared to do that for wool promotion, nor to give more commercial flexibility to the Wool Corporation. All it wanted to do was disband the Australian Wool Testing Authority. That is the sort of nonsense with which honourable members opposite go on. The honourable member for Gwydir has tabled a statement. I will have to get back to him on it, because it is one of the greatest grab-bags I have seen in my life in this Parliament. It really is funny. The honourable member for Gwydir, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, said that one of the dreadful things we have done concerned distributed array processor fertiliser. The rural sector has been calling for, and we have agreed, to try to make the anti-dumping laws in this country work more efficiently. We have been trying to keep out dried vine fruits and various other products. Mr Hunt —You did not do it for cheese. Mr KERIN —We have a deal on cheese that is working. EEC exports now are down by 15 per cent. It was not designed deliberately to zap the rural sector at all; it was something to get industry protection across the board, whether it be rural or secondary, on an even basis. The Opposition never says a thing about rural Australia. What are we doing there? We have provided $1.245 billion for roads, $400m through Telecom for remote areas and 16,000 youth traineeships. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(4.26) —It ill becomes anyone sitting anywhere in this chamber to deal with the rural crisis at it has been dealt with by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) this afternoon. I had expected better from this Minister and so, frankly, had the farmers of Australia. Farmers of Australia did not travel half way across this nation to protest in Canberra only to be dealt with by the frivolous, petty political point scoring exercise that we have seen this afternoon. Quite frankly, they did not travel to the National Farmers Federation to protest; they did not travel to the Liberal Party to protest; they did not travel to the National Party to protest; they travelled to meet outside the Federal Parliament because they know that the decisions made in this chamber will affect the direction of rural industry and they have not seen any of the sorts of direction that they are seeking from either side of this chamber. It ill becomes the Minister to give the sort of petty political point scoring address that he has this afternoon, or to hurry from the chamber as he has just done, leaving only two members of the Australian Labor Party and one participator in the debate. On Tuesday night we saw from the Government scant recognition of the dilemma that rural Australia currently faces. It ill becomes the Minister to view from the comfort of his former Bureau of Agricultural Economics post or his white LTD precisely what is happening in rural Australia. The reality is that what is happening in rural Australia is awfully uncomfortable. If any farmers are in the Gallery or listening to this broadcast, they have every reason to despair at the performance they have just heard. The farmers of rural Australia may well be assets rich but they are cash poor and the Government has failed to discern between assets richness and cash poverty. The fact that one sees a farmer with a new tariff-paid-for header, a new tractor or whatever else, probably indicates only that he is even increasingly cash poor. Farmers are forced to borrow to expand in this day and age in order to survive. It is that pressure from which they are seeking some relief from the Government today. Farmers will not tolerate patronising government interference and they will not tolerate the expanding role of government that they have seen under the Hawke Administration. On Tuesday night we saw the sanctimonious gesture of a government that confessed something was wrong with the rural economy and so it was prepared to do something about it, but was not truly prepared to face the dilemma that the NFF had eloquently put before it. No one accuses the Hawke Labor Government of inventing rural poverty, but we quite rightly accuse it of exacerbating it, and doing so in the face of what ought to have been good seasons for most of rural Australia. Rural recovery, in spite of good seasons, has been choked, not by weeds, drought, fire or floods, but by the decisions of the Hawke Labor Government. Sadly, we have all been painted with the brush used opposite and so politicians generally are seen as parasites on the productivity of primary industry. In spite of the rural rallies, in Tuesday night's Budget the Government said: `Oh dear, the rural wagon has a squeaky wheel; perhaps we had better give it a poke of grease'. What it failed to see was that the squeaky wheel was not caused by a dry bearing but by a load that was much too heavy. The plea from rural Australia to all of us is to take some steps to reduce that load that rural Australia carries. The first load that it carries that has not been alleviated in any way is the load of public sector borrowings and the deficit. The Government will say: `Look what we have done to the deficit in the Budget'. In deficit terms that is peanuts. The Minister for Primary Industry used selective statistics to make his case. He chose statistics of fuel price rises when fuel prices were rising across the globe, and he chose selective statistics of consumer price index increases. But the truth from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics is that in the Whitlam years the CPI went up by an average of 11.1 per cent, in the Fraser years it went up by an average of 2.2 per cent and in the Hawke years it rose by an astonishing 7.1 per cent. And the Government wonders why rural Australia comes to it desperately and urges it to change the direction of the nation. In fact, the reduction in the deficit announced on Tuesday night is only made possible by an increase of 13 per cent in the revenue. In spite of what was done on Tuesday night the truth remains that the deficit in three Hawke Budgets exceeds the total deficit of seven Fraser Budgets. The interest bill that the farmers of Australia, as Australia's exporters, are currently bearing was once 5 per cent of the value of the exported goods and it is now more than 12 per cent. It is little wonder that, while we meet in this chamber today, farmers are meeting in Canberra to determine what else they need to do to alert this Government to the direction in which rural Australia is heading. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has already referred to another load that has been placed on the rural wagon-the load of tariffs. That is further exacerbated by the unwillingness of this Government to take the unions head on on the question of wage fixation. The honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron) delivered a speech in the grievance debate this afternoon to illustrate just that point. All across rural Australia there is work to be done, but farmers cannot afford to employ anyone to do it. Some attention should be given to that area of unemployment. If we are talking about tariffs and the way in which we deal with wage fixation, we should mention the Mudginberri dispute. Let us see this Government take some action on Mudginberri if it wants to remove some of the load from the rural wagon. Another load on that wagon is the load of government. This Administration agreed to an expansion of the Parliament, but even more dramatic has been the expansion of the Public Service. Under Whitlam, numbers in the Public Service rose dramatically. Under Fraser, Public Service numbers fell to 149,000. Under Hawke they have risen again to 165,000 and on Tuesday night the Treasurer had the gall to come into the chamber and tell us blatantly that he was putting another 800 people into the internal revenue department to check once again on taxation returns. Farmers have every reason to be cynical about the inaction of this Government. They also have every reason to be worried about its actions because every time it proposes an action it costs farmers more in tax revenue. The superannuation of public servants cost us $100.50 per head of population 10 years ago and now that has risen in real terms to $223.80 a head. These are the loads that farmers and small businessmen are asked to carry on the rural wagon. Quite frankly, all that was done on Tuesday was to return to farmers things that had already been stolen from them. In Dickensian fashion, the Government acted like Fagin-it took its pickpocketing hands out of the pockets of farmers but it did not hand back any of the material it stole. For example, the farming community has been offered a reduction on tariffs on agricultural chemicals, but that will happen in February, subject to an Industries Assistance Commission inquiry. At the farmers' rally the Prime Minister promised that the Government would prepare a package in the Budget context which would significantly reduce the costs on farmers- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(4.37) —I enter this debate somewhat amazed that the Opposition, and particularly the National Party of Australia, would have the gall and the audacity to bring on a debate criticising this Government's efforts to address the crisis in rural Australia. This is the Opposition that, when in government between 1976 and 1983, was responsible for a period of unprecedented increases in farm costs. The statistics are there. In 1976-77 the costs increased by 12 per cent, rising to 15 per cent in 1980-81 and settling at an average of 11 per cent until 1983. Honourable members should contrast that with the period of government under Bob Hawke. In 1983-84 the increase was 8 per cent and in 1984-85 it was down to 6 per cent. The same story is true in the area of fuel costs. I have heard some nonsense coming from the cockies' corner today. Between 1978 and 1983 fuel costs for farmers under Fraser rose by 130 per cent. Since Labor came to power the rise has been about 16 per cent. Now this Government, the Hawke Government, has responded to the requests of rural producers and will give a full rebate on the excise on diesel fuel. This is estimated to be worth some $35m in a full year to rural producers. Fuel was the main issue that arose when I talked to rural producers, farmers and graziers in central Queensland. This Government has responded to their requests and their demands. This decision is evidence of the Government's action to address farm cost rises and the rural crisis. This Government is acting also to rectify and reverse the savage actions of the previous Liberal-National Party Government. I heard someone from the Opposition benches talk about tariffs on harvesters. That shows how much honourable members opposite do not know about their own Government's actions. This Government has announced that it will remove the tariffs on imported harvesters. Who introduced those tariffs? They were introduced on 17 January 1983. Who was in government then? It was Fraser and Anthony. It was not a Labor government. The Opposition introduced those tariffs and we are removing them. This will save rural producers $14m a year. Yet the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) has the audacity to say that we are doing nothing for rural producers. Unlike its predecessor, the Hawke Labor Government has recognised that not only must farm costs be reduced but there must be a significant increase in farm returns or income. We all appreciate that prices fluctuate widely from year to year because of the dependence on world markets. On average, 70 per cent of Australia's rural output is exported, with the proportion rising to some 90 per cent in some industries. With the exception of wool, Australia has no direct influence over world markets. Yet we need to compete for world markets and to open new areas. We also need to hold what we have. It is not easy to do this, regardless of what the Opposition might say in political terms. It is not easy because of the aggressive policies and the approaches that have been used by other countries, especially the European Economic Community. It is hard when one has a country or a group of countries like the EEC exporting some 20 per cent of their production but subsidising it by loading the price on the other 80 per cent sold on the domestic market. But Australia is in there and thanks to this Government and rural industry organisations we are out there competing and we are fighting back. There are many examples of this Government's initiative. Australia now has an agricultural co-operation agreement with China which was finalised in May 1984. Negotiations have now been completed to set up a similar agreement with the Soviet Union. The Labor Government has appointed new agricultural attaches. Previously we had such attaches in Washington, Brussels, London and Rome, but this Government will expand new market areas and we will have these people in Tokyo, Bahrain and Singapore. Unlike the previous Government and the previous Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, this Government has totally revamped and reformed the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. In October this year a high powered delegation-representatives from the AMLC, the Cattle Council and the Department of Primary Industry-will leave for China to investigate and assess that country's potential for our rural products. This is the Labor Government that has acted responsibly against European Economic Community threats to our traditional markets. Those actions have been applauded by rural producers right across the nation. This is the Government that a few days ago announced a four-year $7m program to assist innovation in Australian meat and livestock marketing. It is a program that will assist the industry to develop a more target oriented approach to red meat marketing. In the area of research and development, this is the Government that has decided to increase the allocations in rural research under the rural industry research fund to $68m and also increase the Commonwealth special research grant to $700,000-an increase of more than $11m for the coming financial year. Let us look at some of the other measures. A sum of $200,000 has been approved for the establishment of the Rural Resources Division in the Department of Primary Industry. We have the establishment of the Rural and Provincial Affairs Unit to provide policy input into government considerations of issues affecting Australians living outside the capital cities. That is because we care not only for those on the land but for those who live in rural areas. There is the ongoing funding of the Rural Development Centre at Armidale, which plays a vital role in mobilising information, ideas and expertise in exploring rural issues and developing policy recommendations. This is the Government that has streamlined and strengthened Australia's agricultural health and quarantine services. This is the Government that has undertaken a national soil conservation program, and this year it will spend almost $5m on approved soil conservation programs. Contrast that with the performance of the previous Liberal-controlled coalition Government. It refused to act to protect and restore Australia's farm lands. It repeatedly pushed this back on the States. The National Party of Australia, in particular, stands accused and condemned for its inaction and apathy in this area. It is that Party that has been responsible for the loss of millions of tonnes of topsoil and the destruction and ruination of hundreds of thousands of hectares across the nation. This is in stark contrast to the positive actions and progressive decisions that have been made by the Labor Government. Despite the cries and demands of Australian fishermen, for years the Liberal-National Party Government sat back while Australia's fisheries were overexploited, mismanaged and overcapitalised. It has been this Hawke Labor Government that heeded the call. The 1985 Budget will provide $3.4m for the maintenance and strengthening of fisheries management and for the northern prawn fishery voluntary adjustment scheme. There will be $5m to $6m given back to the fishermen because of the rebate on diesel fuel excise. There is $5m in a loan guarantee. There is $5.3m for fishery research. This is the Government that cares about rural industry. Look at roads and transportation and those areas that are now being addressed by this Government. This year, as the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said, the Government will allocate $1.245 billion for roads. This is about a quarter of Queensland's total Budget to be allocated for roads across our nation. It is 50 per cent more than the allocation by the previous Liberal-National Party Government. We are proceeding with the remote area telephone program. We are also proceeding with a brand new approach to rural broadcasting. This is the Government that has cared for rural people. I believe that this is the Government that has made the greatest contribution because of its economic policies. The Prime Minister says that, when one looks at this area, the Government has the runs on the board; and that is certainly true. Inflation has been halved, the Australian dollar has been floated, the banks have been deregulated, and industrial disputation has been reduced to record low levels. All these things have assisted rural producers. The devaluation of the Australian dollar, for instance, has resulted in a net gain of almost half a billion dollars to farmers. A one per cent drop in the inflation rate has been calculated as being worth $100m to the advantage of rural producers. This is the Government that certainly has the runs on the board. It is the Government with the policies that are all encompassing, that are broad, and that cater for the total rural community. In the environmental management area and in research there has been a 14.2 per cent increase for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. We have introduced a strategy for youth unemployment, especially in rural areas. We have expanded the isolated patients travel and accommodation scheme. Sixteen thousand additional rural families will benefit this year under that scheme. We have now approved another $17m for rural adjustment. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) talks about rural adjustment. If the Government in Queensland would do the right thing by farmers, we would make sure that cheap money would go to them. But what do we find? Since 1974, $40m has been siphoned out of the rural adjustment fund and the rural reconstruction fund into that State's Consolidated Revenue. That Government has been getting money from this Government and the previous Fraser Government at 8 per cent. It has been lending it at as high as 14.8 per cent, as it did recently to the co-operative millers. And that Government talks about caring for the sugar industry! It does not give a damn. It is interested in point scoring politically and that is all it is worried about. It does not really care, and I think the people are starting to understand that honourable members opposite do not care and that the Queensland National Party does not care. One has to look only at the headlines. One has to see only what has been going on in the National Times. On 5 July we saw the headline: `Militant Farmers could launch New Rural Party'. In the Australian of 4 July the headline reads: `Sinclair reaps wrath of farm lobby'. In the Age of 6 July a headline reads: `Sinclair makes divorce absolute say farmers'. In the Canberra Times of 31 July a headline reads: `Farmers reject ties with Nationals'. Honourable members opposite say that we are the ones who have not done the right thing to solve the crisis. I suggest that if any political party has failed to address the crisis in rural Australia it is the National Party, with the Liberals a very close second. The fact is that the Labor Government is addressing the problems in this country not just for rural people but for every Australian. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) — Order! The discussion is concluded. Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate had agreed to the new amendments made by the House of Representatives as an alternative to the amendment to which the Senate had disagreed. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.46) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the imposition of a levy on grain legumes produced in Australia. The moneys raised by the imposition of the levy will be used to finance research into grain legumes. Administrative organisational arrangements for the research scheme, including the establishment of a trust fund and research council, will be provided pursuant to the Rural Industries Research Bill 1985, which has already been introduced into the Parliament. The Grain Legumes Levy Collection Bill 1985 will provide the machinery for collecting the levy. The levy will be applied initially to lupins and field peas, which are the major grain legumes produced in Australia. Provision is made for other grain legumes to be brought into the scheme by regulation at a later date. Grain legumes, which are also known as protein crops, are becoming important as crops in their own right as well as replacements for traditional pasture legumes in cereal crop rotation programs. The total value of production of lupins and field peas for 1984-85 for example has been estimated at some $107m. Australian production of lupins has increased significantly in recent years, rising from 379,000 tonnes in 1983-84 to an estimated 630,000 tonnes in 1984-85. Western Australia is the largest lupin-producing State and exported some 315,000 tonnes in 1984-85. Research is currently undertaken in Western Australia by way of a State statutory research scheme funded by growers. Research into lupins in other States has been undertaken only on an ad hoc basis. The other grain legume on which levy is to be imposed is field peas. Australian production in 1984-85 is estimated at 140,000 tonnes. South Australia is the major producing State where growers pay a voluntary levy to fund research. Some research work into fields peas has also been funded by State governments and the Commonwealth special research grant. If the full potential of grain legumes as rotational and alternative crops is to be realised there needs to be an increased research effort into the production, processing, storage, transport and marketing of these crops. The grain legume industry has recognised this need and has sought a national grain legumes scheme as the basis for an expanded research effort. The national scheme will take over from the existing Western Australian scheme the major responsibility for lupin research in that State. The legislation provides for an intial levy rate of 75c per tonne of grain legumes processed or delivered. Provision exists for the rate to be varied by regulation up to a maximum of $2.60 per tonne. Provision is also made for any recommendation from the relevant growers' organisation to be taken into account prior to any adjustment to the operative rate of the levy. The levy is payable by growers, but in practice will be paid on their behalf by receivers or purchasers. There is provision in the Grain Legumes Levy Collection Bill for the receiver or purchaser to recover the amount paid on the grower's behalf. However, it is not economically feasible to collect small amounts of levy and therefore provision is made to exempt levy collection on receivals or purchases less than 15 tonnes in any levy year. Similarly, a grower who also processes his own grain legumes will be exempt from paying levy if that grower produces less than 15 tonnes in a levy year. Amounts equal to the levy collected will be paid into a trust fund established under the Rural Industries Research Bill. The Commonwealth will match expenditure of industry moneys from the fund on a dollar for dollar basis up to a maximum level equal to 0.5 per cent of the average gross value of production of leviable grain legumes. It is expected that given normal seasonal conditions the levy will raise about half a million dollars in 1985-86. Research under the scheme will not begin until 1986-87 when the level of funds should be sufficient to finance a research program. The actual level of expenditure on research will be determined by the research council. This level is not expected to exceed $500,000 initially and hence the Commonwealth's contribution under the matching arrangements should not exceed $250,000 in 1986-87. On the basis of present production levels it is anticipated that the Commonwealth contribution will rise to some $500,000 annually in subsequent years. The Commonwealth will meet its share of administrative costs. These are estimated at $11,000 in 1985-86. The commencement date of the legislation is to be set by proclamation. It is intended that proclamation take place prior to the 1985 harvest of lupins and field peas, which begins in November. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.52) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide the machinery necessary for collecting the levy imposed by the Grain Legumes Levy Bill 1985. This Bill should be read as one with the Grain Legumes Levy Bill 1985, and is to come into operation on the same day that that Bill becomes operative. The Bill specifies the liability of growers, purchasers and receivers under the scheme, outlines penalties for non-compliance and provides appropriate powers of enforcement. It is intended that levy collections will commence at the beginning of the harvest period in 1985, with research being financed under the research scheme from the 1986-87 financial year when sufficient funds are available. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill amends the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act 1981, which imposes a levy on the grant of licences to foreign fishing boats not exempted under the Act. At present the classes of exempted vessels include those licensed under an agreement with a foreign government and those temporarily imported for use by and under the control of Australians and deemed to be an Australian vessel in accordance with section 4 (2) of the Fisheries Act 1952. The only fishing agreements Australia has with a foreign government are with Japan and the Republic of Korea. All other foreign vessels licensed to operate in the Australian fishing zone are liable to pay levy unless there is a formal agreement requiring the foreign operators to provide other benefits to Australia, in consideration of which the Minister may waive the levy. In recent years it has been necessary to conclude agreements with Australian principals covering the processor-carrier vessels used by the southern bluefin tuna fishermen last season to facilitate the processing and transport of sashimi quality tuna to the Japanese market. These vessels generate significant benefits for Australia and the purpose of the agreements is to provide a basis for waiving the levy in such cases. However, the conclusion of a formal agreement required under the Fisheries Act 1952 to achieve this is complex and time consuming. The proposed amendment to section 4 of the principal Act will simplify the administrative processes necessary for exempting those foreign vessels, whether temporarily imported or not, which are operated by, or on behalf of, or in accordance with the instructions of Australians and will confer benefits on Australia. The amendments proposed in clauses 5 and 6 relate to the payment of fees for access by foreign interests other than a foreign government to the Australian fishing zone. Foreign fishing vessels may be licensed to fish in the Australian fishing zone under agreements. Agreements may specify the total access fee to be paid to Australia. To secure the payment of the lump sum access fee under the principal Act in its present form, a levy is prescribed, calculated by dividing the total access fee by the agreed number of boats to be licensed. If fewer than the agreed number of boats apply for a licence, a portion of the access fee, although paid previously as part of the total lump sum payment of the fee, remains unauthorised under the present legislation. This produces a loophole which is open to legal challenge. The Bill closes this loophole by providing proper statutory authority for collecting the full amount of lump sum payments specified in any agreement irrespective of the number of licences issued. Other amendments are of a machinery nature. The Bill has no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill amends the Fisheries Agreements (Payments) Act 1981 in parallel with the amendments proposed by clauses 5 and 6 of the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Amendment Bill. The Fisheries Agreements (Payments) Act 1981 authorises the refusal of licences for foreign boats unless amounts specified in agreements between Australia and a foreign government with respect to operating of those boats in the Australian fishing zone have been paid to Australia. The amendment proposed by clause 4 of the Bill will extend the power to refuse licences to cover fisheries agreements between Australia and one or more parties who are not foreign governments. The Bill requires the Minister to have regard only to the terms of such an agreement when deciding whether or not to license foreign boats under the agreement. It also prevents the issue of any such licences unless the amount has been paid to Australia in the manner specified in the agreement. The Bill has no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill gives effect to the Government's decision announced in the 1984 Budget to guarantee a loan of $5m as initial funding for a voluntary adjustment scheme initiated by fishermen in the northern prawn fishery. The voluntary adjustment scheme is a major component of the new management plan being progressively introduced into the fishery. The main objective of the plan is to achieve a significant recovery from the depressed economic conditions that have affected the fishery in recent years. Although production from the northern prawn fishery is valued at about $80m per annum, the presence of substantial excess fishing capacity has resulted in the fishery becoming unprofitable in the existing economic environment. To overcome this problem industry has proposed a voluntary adjustment scheme whereby fishermen wishing to leave the fishery will be compensated for the surrender of their rights in it. To maximise the early impact of the voluntary adjustment scheme, arrangements are being made with a commercial lender to provide initial funding by one or more loans, of which the Bill guarantees repayment. It is intended that the full expense of repaying the loan will be met by those remaining in the fishery through an annual levy to be imposed under the Fisheries Levy Act 1984. Collection of levy will begin in the 1986 licensing year. The risk of the Government having to honour the guarantee is therefore extremely small because the industry will repay the loan and the interest on it. In the absence of any representative industry organisation with power to borrow money, the Queensland Fish Management Authority, which also has considerable involvement in the management of the northern prawn fishery, has agreed to act as agent for the fishing industry and borrow money against the Commonwealth guarantee using its powers under the Queensland Fishing Industry Organisation and Marketing Act 1982. The Bill empowers the Treasurer to guarantee borrowings by the Queensland Fish Management Authority not exceeding $5m, together with interest, subject to the Treasurer approving the terms and conditions of the borrowings. Honourable members might note that following receipt of the report of the working group on the impact of fuel price increases on the fishing industry, which arose out of meetings between Ministers and representatives of the rural and fishing industries, the Government decided, in view of the particularly severe impact that fuel cost increases have had on prawn fisheries across Northern Australia, to provide grants of $3m a year for the three years 1985-86 to 1987-88 for adjustment assistance. The full $3m of the 1985-86 grant is to go to the voluntary adjustment scheme for the northern prawn fishery. At the request of industry this grant is to be additional to, rather than a substitute for, the segment of the voluntary adjustment scheme that industry will fund. The Government is confident that this combination of public and industry contributions will lead in a comparatively short time to the removal of a significant amount of the excess fishing capacity from the fishery and to the return of profitability to the fishermen who remain active in it. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.01) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972. The Act imposes levies on milk and butterfat production for the purposes of funding dairy research and promotion and to finance the operations of the Australian Dairy Corporation. The Bill will increase the maximum rate of levy for research purposes. The present maxima are 1.2c per 100 litres whole milk or the equivalent rate of 30c per 100 kilograms of butterfat. The Bill provides for these rates to be increased to 10c or $2.50 respectively. The increase will give scope to the industry to have its contribution to research raised progressively by regulation up to 0.5 per cent of its gross value of production-GVP. I announced in February that the government had adopted the objective of raising the level of industry contribution to rural research to 0.5 per cent of GVP within five years and to match that contribution dollar for dollar to that level. The Australian Dairy Research Committee, supported by the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, has requested that I seek the increase in the maximum rate of levy, which is the purpose of this legislation. Research activity has an important role in enabling an industry to adapt to change. This is particularly relevant for the dairy industry, which must accommodate itself to those few remunerative markets that have not been destroyed by subsidised dairy products, particularly from the European Community. Increased research effort is also required to assist the industry to continue to improve its production efficiency, to develop new products and to compete with the producers of other countries on export markets and on our own domestic market. Dairy industry contributions to research have been about 0.05 per cent of GVP over the last three years; that is one-tenth of the Government's objective over five years. It is now evident that there has been under-investment in research and development in this industry, and there is an urgent need to increase the contribution to assist in improving its viability. The Australian Dairy Research Committee has had to draw heavily on its non-matchable reserves to finance its 1985-86 research program, which is at a level of expenditure on research activities no higher than in 1984-85. In addition to providing for a much increased research program in the future, an increase in the levy will provide funds to rebuild these reserves. The industry has moved immediately to increase its contribution to research. It has requested an increase in the operative rates to 2c per 100 litres whole milk or 50c per 100 kilograms butterfat. An amendment to the regulations will be sought when the next maximum rates are incorporated in the Act. In the meantime, action is being taken by regulation to increase the operative rates of levy to the permissible maximum in the current legislation of 1.2c per 100 litres of whole milk and the equivalent of 30c per 100 kilograms of butterfat. It is rewarding that the industry has responded to the Government's objective and taken positive steps towards achieving substantially increased funding of research. The amendments proposed in the Bill will have no impact on budgetary outlays for the Commonwealth in 1985-86 because the 1985-86 Government contribution to the research program has already been approved. Assuming the operative rates are increased from 1c to 2c or its equivalent, there is a potential Budget revenue increase in 1985-86. At the level of production recently forecast by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics this revenue increase would be some $330,000 in 1985-86. In a full year, and not taking into account any reduction in production, the increased revenue would be about $600,000, making a total revenue from levy in a full year of the order of $1.2m. The Commonwealth commitment to match expenditure from the increased levy revenue will arise in 1986-87 and future years. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for an amendment to the Wheat Tax Act 1957 to increase the maximum tax rate to $1.10 per tonne. The operative rate within this maximum is set by regulation on the recommendation of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. The tax is collected at industry's request and held in trust to fund research projects. In February this year I announced the Government's intention to encourage rural industries to raise the level of their research contributions to 0.5 per cent of their gross value of product-GVP-within five years, and reaffirmed the Government's commitment to match expenditure of the levy-tax contributions from industry dollar for dollar to that level. This followed a thorough review during 1984 of rural research and the contribution of the rural industry research fund scheme to this effort. I made further comment on the need for government action on rural research in my second reading speeches on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Bill 1985 on 20 March and the Rural Industry Research Bill 1985 on 17 April. In taking this position, the Government recognises that rural industries have made a significant contribution to the Australian research effort. The benefits of rural research accrue not only to the farm sector but also to the community generally through the impact of exported rural production on the balance of payments, employment in secondary industries processing primary products, transport and service industries, and as an input to research in the medical and other sectors. Individual rural producers are generally unable to conduct their own research nor are they able to reap all the benefits of research findings to the exclusion of other producers. From a community point of view the level of research effort would be well below optimum were it not for the intervention of government in the research funding process. The rural industry research fund program of which this wheat research tax is a component provides a means for rural industry to contribute to its research effort and for that effort to be supplemented by government. The proposed amendment will establish a maximum rate of contribution to wheat industry research at about 0.6 per cent of the industry's GVP, at current prices. This will give the industry considerable flexibility to increase its research contributions over some years, consistent with the Government's policy, but will avoid the need for frequent amendments to the legislation. The Wheat Growers Federation asked that the maximum be abolished, but I have set a specific rate, above the maximum level, to which the Commonwealth will match industry contributions. In doing so, I had regard to the industry's desire for minimal restriction, while at the same time being mindful of views within the Parliament that any form of tax should be subject to a reasonable legislated maximum. The Wheat Growers Federation in a submission to me has requested that the operative rate of tax be increased to 35c per tonne, equivalent to 0.2 per cent of GVP. The present operative rate of 30c per tonne has applied since October 1983 and is at the current legislated maximum. The Wheat Growers Federation considers that an increase is now necessary to maintain the real value of moneys available for research. Furthermore, an increase would allow the Wheat Research Council and State committees to build up adequate reserve funds to maintain their ongoing programs despite variations in annual production. An increase in the research effort to improve the efficiency of production and aspects of transport, storage and shipping matters will help the industry to maintain international competitiveness in a changing market environment which is characterised by depressed prices, increased costs and predatory credit and marketing practices. Wheat is one of Australia's leading export income earners. The Australian Bureau of Statistics preliminary data for 1984-85 show that wheat brought in 9 per cent of Australia's export income. The industry is facing a crisis in the international market, brought about by rapid and significant gains in wheat production in many countries which used to provide export markets and, significantly, policies in the major developed countries which continue to produce large structural surpluses because their producers are protected from market realities. We are currently witnessing what can only be called a subsidy trade war born largely out of frustration with EEC export subsidy practices. Market prices will inevitably be driven down and it is difficult to foresee their early recovery. As I have said before, Australia cannot afford to indulge in export subsidies on our major export commodities. We must therefore increase our efficiency in order that we can continue to trade profitably in these more difficult circumstances. We must keep our technology up to the mark. Our research effort is a significant investment towards achieving that goal. I congratulate the wheat industry on its realistic, businesslike attitude in requesting that the operative rate of moneys it contributes to research be raised, and that the legislated maximum not be an impediment to future increases. At the proposed operative tax rate of 35c per tonne, the industry's contribution in 1985-86 is estimated to be $5.2m. The new tax rate would be applicable to only about 95 per cent of the 1985-86 season's wheat because deliveries made from about mid-August until the new rate comes into effect are taxed at the current rate. The Commonwealth's matching commitment in respect of the increased tax will not arise until 1986-87 and later years. In addition to wheat delivered to the Australian Wheat Board, the amended tax ceiling and the proposed new operative rate will apply to wheat sold by the Board under grower to buyer arrangements and to stockfeed wheat traded under a permit issued by the Board. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Export Inspection Charge Act and the Export Inspection Charge Collection Act so as to provide for collection of charges to be imposed consequential upon passage of the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Bill 1985 and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Bill 1985. The registered occupier of an establishment which receives an inspection service upon which a service charge is payable will be required to record the particulars on which the calculation of the charge is based. The arrangements are similar to those applying to the collection of quantity-based charges under the Collection Act. Returns containing these particulars will need to be lodged at a specified office of my Department together with payment of the charge. Honourable members should note that returns and the information therein cannot be used as evidence in criminal proceedings, other than prosecutions for the offences of failing to submit returns or give information or submitting false returns or giving false information. Twenty-eight days will be allowed, after the end of the month in which the inspection service was provided, for payment of the charge. The registered occupier of an establishment subject to a registration charge will become liable for payment of that charge on the day on which registration or annual renewal of registration comes into force. My Department will forward a debit notice well in advance of this date. The Bill provides in respect of both new charges that no further export permits will be granted to a person who failed to pay charges by the due date, and any penalty where applicable, until payment has been made. Provisions in the Bill dealing with penalty for non-payment of the new charges, access to premises and recovery of unpaid charge are in similar terms to existing provisions in the Collection Act relating to quantity charges. The Collection Act will provide a facility for collection of an estimated $5.15m in revenue from industry in 1985-86. The commodities concerned are grains, fish, dried fruit, canned and processed fruit and vegetables, eggs, dairy products, poultry meat and game meat. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The primary purpose of this Bill is to extend the range of legislative options for imposing charges on industry to recoup part of the costs of inspecting rural produce for export. This Bill provides for a charge to be imposed on a manhour basis for inspection services provided to a registered export establishment. This Bill, coupled with the associated Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Bill, will provide meaningful options for charging which can be used separately or together to impose inspection charges which accord closely to the user pays concept. Under current arrangements export inspection is carried out for a range of different products in a range of establishments, such as abattoirs, fruit canneries and fish processing plants. A flat rate charge is imposed regardless of costs in each establishment. The new methods of recouping costs will give industry an opportunity to streamline its operations and so promote fairness in the application of inspection charges and efficiency in both the delivery and use of the inspection services provided. For the products covered by this legislation, the export inspection service has recently completed a major review of inspection practices which has resulted in the development of new objectively based inspection arrangements requiring greater industry self-regulation. These arrangements are being progressively trialled and implemented. Simplified inspection procedures will be introduced between now and June 1986, which will lead to significant savings in the cost of running the inspection service and immediate cost savings to industry. These new arrangements, which will benefit industry by some $18m per annum, have been taken into account in calculating the 1985-86 charges. As the new inspection initiatives are being implemented industries are being progressively approached for discussions on the appropriate method of applying inspection charges. The fish industry has already decided that it wishes to change from the current system of per kilogram charge and a new system of registration charges combined with a manhour charge is expected to be implemented before the end of 1985. Discussions have commenced with the meat industry and my Department will be approaching the dried fruits and canned fruits industries in the near future for consideration of the charging options. The poultry meat industry has recently agreed to a system of registration charges. The inspection service has reached the point where any further major cost reductions beyond those contained in this year's Budget will require industry itself to modify its own practices as they affect the level of inspection. To sum up, the charging legislation being introduced in this package of Bills will enable industries to make a choice. They can opt to adopt a new charging system which encourages individual operators to establish systems which reduce their export inspection needs and costs while maintaining the required standards of hygiene and quality. Alternatively, they can remain on the current flat rate charging system whereby operators with less expensive export inspection systems tend to cross-subsidise the operators with more expensive systems of inspection. These new charging arrangements provide industry with an opportunity to work positively with government to reduce costs to farmers and to taxpayers who subsidise inspection activity. The passing of this legislation will have no immediate impact on government revenue or costs as the policy for 1985-86 is to maintain the level of recovery at 50 per cent of the costs of inspection. The manhour charge for fish is estimated to result in revenue to the Government of $530,000 this financial year. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.18) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for a charge to be made upon the registration of an export registered establishment where this is requested by an industry. This charge complements the existing quantity-based inspection charges and the proposed manhour charges. It could be applied in isolation or in concert with either of the other types of charges. As I indicated in the second reading speech on the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Bill, both the fish industry and the poultry meat industries have already opted for the introduction of registration charges. Where a charge is imposed under this Bill, it will be subject to Commonwealth policy on the level of recoupment of inspection costs so that other inspection charges applying to a commodity will be reduced accordingly. The Government will continue to meet costs which are not recouped from industry. For fish and poultry it is expected that some $470,000 will be collected in relation to the charge on registered premises during 1985-86. This charge, together with the inspection service charge, provides industry with an opportunity and incentive to make more effective use of inspection resources so that both inspection costs and the drain on the public purse through the subsidy provided by taxpayers will be minimised. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.20) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Restoration of facade, General Post Office, Martin Place, Sydney. I make some remarks about a very important and laudable project which the Government and my Department are considering and which we would like the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works to consider. The Public Works Committee is being asked to consider and report on a project of great cultural and architectural significance to this country. The Sydney General Post Office is one of Australia's most important public buildings. It was constructed late last century in the style of the Italian Renaissance and possesses some of the finest and most intricate stone carving in Australia. It is located in Martin Place, which is one of the most important public spaces in Sydney, It is entered in the register of the National Estate and is classified by the National Trust of Australia. The building, like many other early sandstone buildings, has received little external maintenance over the last century and its facade has deteriorated due to accelerating pollution attack on the stonework. Major restoration work was last carried out some 20 to 30 years ago. Since then, experts working in this field have developed a better understanding of the characteristics and serious effects of modern pollutants and the nature and mechanism of the deterioration currently being experienced. It is generally accepted that restoration should proceed as soon as possible if deterioration is to be arrested and this most important and historial building preserved in good condition for future generations of Australians to appreciate. The proposal to be referred to the Public Works Committee will probably be the largest stone restoration and repair project yet undertaken in Australia. Australia Post and the Department of Housing and Construction have worked with a number of very specialised consultants to advise and assist in the project. The work to be undertaken generally comprises the repair and restoration of all parts of the facade, including the famous clock tower. The proposal had originally been planned to be referred to the Public Works Committee prior to the dissolution of the House last October at the then estimated cost of $15.4m. The current estimated cost is $17m at March 1985 prices. The increase is due solely to movements in costs in the building industry. The duration of the project will be largely dependent on availability of skilled stonemasons and the extent of other stone restoration projects being undertaken in the period leading up to the Bicentennial in 1988. I have pleasure in tabling plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the house and the Public Works Committee. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.24) —As shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, I say on behalf of the Opposition that we support the reference of this project to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. As the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has said, the Sydney General Post Office approaches its centenary as Australia approaches its bicentenary. This magnificent building is, therefore, almost exactly half the age of Australia. It was constructed just one century after the arrival of Captain Arthur Phillip. It is regarded as being the finest Italian Renaissance-style building in Australia, and I am told that it is regarded as being one of the finest in the world outside Italy. It has formed a tremendous part of Australia's history and heritage. It is a building which I think most Australians who visit Sydney from other parts of the Commonwealth admire and regard with considerable affection. I worked in Sydney some 25 years ago. I think the first building I can recall seeing as a very small boy going to Sydney shortly after the War was the Sydney GPO. I note the Minister's comments that the last restoration work was carried out 20 or 30 years ago and that since that time, because of modern pollutants and the other factors to which the Minister has referred, severe deterioration is currently being experienced. That it will cost $17m to restore the building indicates that the damage has been very significant indeed. However, on behalf of the Opposition I say that because this building is of such historic importance and because it is such a basic and fundamental part of the heritage of Australia, the work must be done. Mr Ruddock —If it was like the Rural Bank building and if it was left to the Wran Labor Government, it would be pulled down. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member has made a very valid comment. It is very pleasing to note that some of the policies of the Hawke socialist Government which remind me of the Goths and the Vandals are not being employed on this occasion. As the Minister indicated, it will be appropriate if the restoration of the facade of the Sydney GPO can be completed prior to the Bicentennial in 1988. Accordingly, the Opposition supports the reference of this project to the Public Works Committee. We wish the Committee every success in its deliberation and look forward to receiving in this Parliament its report on the proposed work on this very significant and historic building of the Commonwealth of Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.28) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 7-9 (1985). The Customs tariff proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Custom Tariff Act 1982. The proposals formally place before Parliament, as required by law, Customs tariff alterations made by notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette during the recent recess. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 7 (1985) are operative on and from 1 January 1985 and provide for the duty free entry under quota of new woven polypropylene bags of Forum Island country origin. The actual quota which has been approved for 1985 is half a million units. The introduction of this concession follows consideration by the Government of a request by the Forum Island countries for increased access for these goods under the South Pacific regional trade and economic co-operation agreement. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 8 (1985), operative on and from 1 July 1985, incorporate amendments to various Schedules to the Customs Tariff Act. These proposals contain measures which: (1) correctly reflect the official title of countries and places specified in Schedule 1 to the Customs Tariff Act. Duty rates are not affected by these changes; (2) change Schedule 3, Part II of Schedule 4 and Schedule 5 to the principal Act by removing references to certain phasing rates of duty in order to keep the Act as simple and as up-to-date as possible. This action has, in some instances, provided the opportunity for further tariff simplification by enabling certain tariff classifications to be amalgamated; (3) implement new arrangements to increase access for certain furniture and furniture components of New Zealand origin. These changes are contained in Schedule 5 to the principal Act and follow consultations under the Australia-New Zealand closer economic relations trade agreement to provide liberalised arrangements for these goods; and (4) amend item 56 in Part I of Schedule 4 to extend to prescribed ship builders concessional entry of goods used in the construction or modification of bountiable vessels. This change follows an amendment to the Bounty (Ships) Act 1980 which enables prescribed ship builders to be registered for bounty purposes under that Act. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 8 also include a number of changes which continue implementation of the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission report on the commercial by-law system. The Government's decision provided for the introduction of a commercial tariff concession system which came into operation on 1 July 1983. The decision also provided for a two-year transitional period during which commercial by-law system concessions were to be phased out. Accordingly, all references in Part I of Schedule 4 which included a reference to the commercial by-law system criteria have been omitted from 1 July 1985. The decision to implement the commercial tariff concession system and subsequent decisions made by the Government in respect of particular goods do, however, require the continuation of certain concessional arrangements that would otherwise have lapsed on 1 July 1985. Accordingly, Part I of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act has been changed to maintain concessional entry in respect of certain goods, as follows: (1) Goods entered under end-use under security provisions. These concessions appear as new items 60, 61 and 62 and relate to certain chemicals and plastics, cutlery components, aluminised steel, aircraft parts and equipment and vegetables. The creation of these items is an interim measure as all these goods are currently the subject of references to the Industries Assistance Commission. Their long term treatment will be determined in the Government's decisions on the resultant reports; (2) goods imported to meet shortfall and fall short situations. Item 59 has been inserted for these concessions. This item only provides for concessions to be continued for products receiving such treatment prior to 1 July 1985. The long term future of these concessions is to be subject to reviews by the Industries Assistance Commission. In this regard some of the goods are already under reference to the Commission; (3) goods imported to enable the testing and evaluation of motor vehicles or motor vehicle components manufactured under the Government's passenger motor vehicle plan. The maintenance of this concession is provided by the amendment of item 24; (4) goods imported for use as prototypes for the manufacture of similar goods in Australia, which is provided by new item 58; and (5) goods imported for use in petroleum exploration and development. The continuation of this concession is reflected in the creation of new item 57. This item replaces items 41 and 52 and has also required an amendment to be made to the legal note to Part I of Schedule 4. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 9 (1985), operative on and from 9 February 1985, provide for a 2 per cent reduction in the New Zealand rate of duty applying to certain engine-powered lawnmowers. The Government decided to reduce the New Zealand rate of duty from 7 per cent to 5 per cent following a review of a compensating charge applied to certain New Zealand lawnmowers as a result of the different duty treatment accorded lawnmower engines when imported into Australia or New Zealand. This review followed the Government's decision on the IAC report on lawnmowers, certain engines and parts, which reduced the general rate of duty on certain imported lawnmower engines and introduced a bounty on Australian production of $6 per engine. A further review of the New Zealand rate applying to these goods will be undertaken before 31 December 1986. A summary of the alterations contained in these proposals has been prepared and is being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr UREN —Yes, I do. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr UREN —An article written by Alan Ramsey appeared in today's National Times under the heading `Wyuna's Ministerial Mates'. In that article Mr Ramsey outlined my role as the Minister responsible for the development of the community housing expansion program. That article implies that I directly lobbied for the Wyuna Co-operative in its application for a loan under CHEP. Mr Ramsey refers also to a departmental minute to the Minister drawing attention to copy of a letter I wrote to the present Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) in relation to the International Youth Year programs funds. Mr Ramsey states that the O'Donovan report did not publish my letter. Firstly, might I lay to rest the lie of Mr Ramsey's article and the implication that I made representations for Wyuna in relation to the CHEP funds. I did not. That is completely false. I wrote a letter on 29 April 1985 to the Minister for Territories making representations on behalf of the Wyuna Community in relation to the International Youth Year program funds. I was interviewed by Mr O'Donovan on 31 July in my office and I revealed quite openly and frankly to Mr O'Donovan my representations to the Minister for Territories on 29 April. Mr O'Donovan said that he was not interested in the letter; that he had seen it and it was outside his terms of reference. Clearly, the letter does not relate to the matter of CHEP in any way. Unless the National Times withdraws unreservedly the allegation that I had in any way made representations to the Minister for Territories on behalf of Wyuna or the CHEP, I intend to instruct my solicitors to take action for defamation. Mr Sinclair —Would the honourable gentleman be prepared to table the letter to which he referred so that all questions and outstanding issues about it can be confirmed? Mr UREN —The only thing I have to say to the right honourable gentleman is that he fights in the gutter. It has been my understanding in the past that when a man makes a personal explanation he does it to clear his reputation. Unlike the scurrilous individual-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have allowed the Leader of the National Party to ask a question. I suggest that the Minister resume his seat. Mr UREN —If the right honourable gentleman wants the letter he can apply for it under the public information provisions and that letter will be made available. Debate resumed. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(5.38) —The first signal of the Government's attack on the independence of retirees was given with the instigation of the lump sum tax on superannuation. The first shot in a continuing broadside of disregard for the elderly came with the taxing of benefits paid as a lump sum for superannuants. These warnings were followed by the infamous assets test. These two measures will be further king-hitting retirees with a capital gains tax proposed by the Government before the end of this year. Many years of careful, frugal savings have been irreparably damaged by these processes. Income has been forgone by many over a long period of their working lives in order to set aside funds for their retirement. The thrifty, the prudent and the careful have been badly treated by this Government in a whole series of acts which seeks to strike at those who are retiring or have retired. Of course, the introduction of a lump sum tax has imposed many effects on the community. The reduction of the lump sum retirement benefits will only cause more people to enter the social security system at an earlier age and, therefore the taxpayer will be stuck with this extra burden, in particular for the low and middle income earners. I believe that superannuation is the only form of capital gains available to most wage and salary earners. Now it is to be taxed. With the instigation of a capital gains tax on death it will be taxed once more if it is held as cash assets. The superannuation tax would allow the continuation of tax free capital gains for people who are financially better off. Of course the Government's aim is to coerce people into taking the employer's subsidy in the form of a pension and to allow a refund of one's own contribution tax free. I believe that this policy will inevitably lead to a non-contributory type of occupational superannuation, and this will not be good for the economy. We are already seeing the instigation of non-contributory schemes with the union movement foisting on employers the building industry superannuation scheme, the Australian Council of Trade Unions scheme, the metal trades scheme and the electrical trades scheme. One after the other non-contributory schemes are being foisted on employers and employees. Taxation on lump sums will act as a deterrent for some people to join superannuation schemes and will cause a decrease in the growth of funds available for investment in Australia. I further believe that the greatest number of employees who receive lump sums from superannuation schemes are low income earners. These low income earners and those elderly who have a short life expectancy are the most likely to take a lump sum to clear their debts and to see their way clear for their future retirement. They are disadvantaged by the processes that the Government has adopted. Yet, in an address to the Life Insurance Federation of Australia on 31 May 1984, shortly after the Government's decision to bring in these measures, the Treasurer said: I think it can be quite fairly said, however, that in the past the Government and hence the community generally has not been obtaining good value for the considerable degree of financial support it has been providing to the retirement income system. To counteract this situation, the Government has already embarked on a number of measures that are aimed at the development of more equitable and efficient retirement income policies. The Government started the process with a lump sum tax and followed it with the assets test, with a capital gains tax in sight. If one refers to the Treasurer's comment that he believed that the Government had already embarked on a number of measures aimed at the development of more equitable and efficient retirement income policies, one cannot believe that these three measures are part of that process. Yet he is holding them up as part of that process. It is an attack on those who have been prudent, wise, frugal and careful, and the attack has come in such a way that those on low incomes who take a small lump sum on retirement to pay off their debts or to clear their house loans and have a debt-free retirement are penalised. Also, those people with a short life expectancy might not wish to embark on a term of pension payments but would rather see the benefits go to home improvements, a trip overseas or some personal joy before they go on. I cannot understand a government that adopts a technique of really penalising those who seek to look after themselves. We are not talking about people with large amounts of money, because the majority of people who lump sum their superannuation tend to be low income earners. Yet this Government is seeking to attack those who have prepared for their retirement over a long period. Of course people on higher incomes, such as myself and my colleagues opposite, have contributed to superannuation schemes. The preparation for retirement that we are forced to make allows us to judge wether we prefer a lum sum or a pension. The fact is that the cheap way out for the Commonwealth is for a member to take a lump sum because if he takes his benefit as an indexed pension over time it is more expensive to the revenue. The Government has been aware of the community's concern about these factors. It should be further concerned about the way in which the Commissioner of Taxation is applying taxation to the formerly non-taxable parts of lump sum benefits. The eligible termination payment form-the notorious Schedule L-which is required to be filled in by people retiring has four concessional elements in it and the fourth concessional element involves a concession in that a small remaining portion of the employee's contribution has not been taxed. That is currently being taxed and it is causing chaos in the system. I appeal to the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) to sort out that matter. I have spoken to a number of accountants over the last couple of days and they assure me that they cannot get clarification. They are told-honourable members will recognise this classic answer-that they can let it go to a test case and then they will know. It means that people who are in, or approaching retirement are asked to pay in some instances a considerable amount of extra funds to the Australian Taxation Office and the Taxation Office has taken the precaution of saying that it will hold the money until the matter is finally settled. I believe that this lump sum tax is a terrible tax. It involves a series of measures to attack the retirees and elderly of the nation. The Treasurer has misjudged the situation and has wrongfully foisted on the community this priority. It is a priority that will be revoked by the incoming coalition government. We do not believe that this is the way in which we should deal with retirees. They should be dealt with with compassion and concern and given some incentive to prepare for their retirement. The Government should not adopt this damaging, dictatorial approach. Mr GEAR(Canning)(5.47) —After listening to the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) one is drawn to the conclusion that either he knows nothing about retirement incomes or, if he does, he is lying. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for Canning should not suggest that another honourable member is lying. It is contrary to Standing Orders and he should withdraw the accusation. Mr GEAR —I withdraw it. I will stick to my first proposition and say that the honourable member for Mitchell knows nothing about retirement incomes. To understand the focus of the Incomes Tax Assessment Bill it is important to appreciate the retirement options available to Australians today. Our pension system has not been changed since 1952. We have had the same scheme through both conservative and Labor governments in that time. Pensions can be funded in two different ways-by either contributory or non-contributory schemes. We have both options in Australia. Our present system was formulated with the view that people should be free to choose the way in which they provide for their own retirement. We hear a lot about freedom of choice from honourable members opposite. In fact the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who is at the table, said exactly that when commenting on the Whitlam Government report on a national superannuation scheme. He put out a Press release in about 1979-three years after he read the report-in which he reiterated that very point. He said that the freedom of choice in relation to the provision of retirement incomes was still the focus of the Government's intentions. He can deny that if he wishes but I can prove that that was the view of the Liberal-National Party Government. We have a freedom of choice and there has been an incentive for people to enter superannuation schemes so that when they retire they are not a drain on the government purse. The government of the day, to its credit, recognised that there would be people who could not provide for their own retirement and that a government pension should be available to them. It was a safety net. It realised at the time that there were low income people and people who may have, through no fault of their own, found themselves at the end of their working lives without an adequate superannuation pension plan. The pension system was put there as a safety net, not to provide a non-contributory pension scheme. I point out a few facts on freedom of choice. If the focus of the legislation in 1952 was to give people freedom of choice with regard to their pension scheme, the figures in 1984 prove very illuminating. In 1984 about 40 per cent of the work force had access to a superannuation scheme. Those people were employed mainly by larger companies and government departments, both State and Federal. About 40 per cent of the work force had access to a superannuation scheme; about 60 per cent did not. In 1984, 780,000 people received the full pension; about 56 per cent of that 60 per cent. One can see that most people, given the choice of providing for their retirement or doing nothing, will do nothing. The Government has given them the pension. The amount of pensions paid out by the Government has increased significantly in monetary terms. The Government will have to address this problem, because the aging of the Australian population will exacerbate this problem of finding more and more money for government funded non-contributory pensions. The only government that ever did anything about superannuation was the Whitlam Government, which conducted an investigation into providing a government sponsored superannuation scheme. By the time that report was received, the Government was no longer in power. When that report was presented in 1979, the then Government commented on it, but did not take up the options. The Life Insurance Federation put out a paper last year in which it expressed some interest in looking, with the Government, at ways in which we could have a contributory scheme. It may be a good idea that that option be looked at. The Hawke Government, since it was re-elected, has moved to put some integrity back into the present system, despite what the honourable member for Mitchell said. The story he spun would have us believe that the present Government is taking these measures to penalise thrift and disadvantage those people who have saved throughout their working lives. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I said, the whole focus of the present superannuation scheme is to allow people to make provision for their retirement so that they will not be a drain on the Government purse. The first thing the Government did was to put a tax on lump sum superannuation payments. It was a glaring rake-off for those merchants who wanted to take advantage of the taxation system with regard to superannuation payments, to take them as a lump sum and pay virtually no tax on them after having received the benefit of tax free allowances while subscribing to those superannuation schemes. They got a benefit from the public purse because they could deduct superannuation payments from their taxable income for the year. Having received that lump sum, they paid only one per cent tax on it. Of the total lump sum, only 5 per cent was taken into account for taxation purposes in the year in which the lump sum was taken. It was not even a 5 per cent tax; it worked out at about one per cent. Magazines such as Pensioner News and Pensioner Weekly contained full page advertisements from entrepreneurs trying to get people who had taken a lump sum to invest it in a way in which they would have no income, but still received a capital growth and also qualified for the pension. It was double dipping and it had to stop. This Government had the guts to do something about it. It does the Opposition no credit to say that if ever it was returned to government it would do away with that. That would ensure that the honest taxpayers would have to pick up that burden. We have closed off that loophole and it is to the Government's credit that it has done that. One of the ways in which the impact of policies can be measured is to look at who criticises the moves we make. When this Government brought in the lump sum taxation provisions, those of us who were in Parliament at the time would remember that the most vocal group in the community was the pilots; people on very high incomes who receive significant benefits from the wages system. They were the people who led the revolt; not the ordinary taxpayer in the street. In some way that can be seen as a vote of confidence by the people in the community for what the Government did. As the honourable member for Mitchell pointed out, the Government also brought in an assets test. It was used by the Opposition as a scare tactic in the last election campaign, even though the people affected were the top 2 per cent of the richest pensioners. As the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) pointed out in this House, at least 12 assets test forms were filled out by millionaires, At least 12 millionaires were receiving a pension or part of it. When the pension system was brought in in 1952, it was never intended that people of substantial means would have access to the pension. The honourable member for Mitchell was way off line when he said that the assets test was attacking pensioners. What it was doing was shoring up the very inefficient system that we have had for a long time; a system that I do not take a great deal of joy in defending. I point out that the assets test operated in Australia between 1908 and 1976. It would be illuminating if we could ask the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, whether he would have thought about taking away the assets test. It is my belief that he would not. At least he recognised, as do the honourable member for Bennelong and the President of the Liberal Party, Mr Valder, that the assets test is a necessary move to stop the haemorrhaging of this blow-out in social security payments. The test was not compulsory. The Opposition has always pushed the line that we wanted to know everthing about pensioners. Pensioners do not have to fill out an assets form; it is not compulsory. They have to fill out the form only if they want a pension. That point has been glossed over. Those 12 millionaires need not have bothered to fill out assets test forms because they must have known they would not get the pension. They could have thrown them in the bin. But we are not here to talk about that. When the members of the Opposition talk about the assets test, they do not know what they are talking about. They used it in a shameful way in the last election campaign to scare pensioners into voting for them. They are still talking about removing the assets test if ever they are returned to government. The question that has to be asked is: Will the Opposition raise taxes to give the pension to the millionaires who do not need it, or will it lower the pension of the 780,000 people who do need it? That is the question we ask the Opposition: Will it raise taxes or lower pensions? It is my belief that by that time the honourable member for Bennelong will be occupying the seat he is in at the present time. At least he has some appreciation of what the assets test is all about. The present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has no fiscal knowledge at all, as displayed by the exhibitions he has put on. I hope that when the honourable member for Bennelong takes over as Leader of the Opposition, he will kill that stone dead and will agree with the President of the Liberal Party, Mr Valder, that the assets test is a necessary safeguard for the pension system. One of the provisions in this Bill looks at the cherry picker scheme. I spoke about it last year. For those who do not have a lot of knowledge of this particular scheme, I will explain that it all came about because of the judgment in New South Wales in November 1982 in the case of Kelly v. Raymor, brought down by Mr Justice Wootten. Mr Justice Wootten did not mince words when he spoke of the motives behind these schemes. He said: Despite the disagreements of the two brothers-- that is the Kelly brothers-- they shared one consuming passion, a desire to play as little tax as possible. It is apparent that the problem of avoiding taxation occupied many of their waking hours, and dictated many of their actions. Later in his judgment Mr Justice Wootten spoke about the amounts involved. If honourable members think that these were small amounts they should listen to this. Mr Justice Wootten said: Contributions were made to the maximum amount for which an income tax deduction could be claimed for the employing companies in respect of each employee. In respect of the five financial years ending on 30 June 1973-30 June 1977 over $2 750 000 was paid into the fund by way of contribution. By that time the fund was saturated from the point of view of gaining taxation benefits and contributions ceased and have not been resumed. One can see in this celebrated case that the superannuation provisions about which I spoke earlier, which were there to entice people to take out superannuation benefits so that they would not be a drain on the Government, were actually used by these tax cheats to cheat the Government out of money. If honourable members want to know how these schemes worked I will quote a few examples that Mr Justice Wootten gave. He said: In 1980 there were three employees who were within a month of reaching retiring age. And what happened to each of them is instructive. Mr Mitchell was due to reach the retiring age of 65 on 11 March 1980. His supervisor asked him if he would mind leaving on 27 February, and he said that it did not make any difference to him and he left. In fact, unknown to him it made a difference of $48 000, the sum credited to him in the books of the fund, for which his employer had obtained taxation deductions. Last year the Government moved in this House to change the law retrospectively back to the first known instance of these deplorable cases. That legislation was passed in this place but defeated in the Senate. One can see that the Liberal and National Parties, even when they are in opposition, still protect the tax cheats in society. It does the Australian Democrats no credit that they sided with those two parties in defeating that legislation in the Senate. The Bill before the House today addresses many of the areas of concern in superannuation. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) spelled out in his second reading speach, these are necessary reforms on a moral and fiscal basis and that is something of which members of the Opposition, judging by their contributions here today, have little comprehension. I support the Bill and commend it to the House. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(6.03) —I just wish to make a short contribution to the debate on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill to raise a couple of specific issues. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) has already delivered the main response of the Opposition and has pointed out how the Government should be condemned for rushing such very complicated legislation through the Parliament without giving adequate time for consideration. As a consequence we now have this Bill before us which seeks to repair the damage done by much of the haste with which the original Bill was put through. There are two particular matters which I want to talk about. The first relates to another aspect of superannuation and taxation-that is, the taxation benefits available to the self-employed person who makes superannuation arrangements. One of the more depressing features of the debates on taxation in this Parliament over the past few years has been the way in which the generalised smear of tax avoidance or evasion has been invoked by members of the Labor Party to denigrate any tax measure put forward by the Opposition parties. Those members have used that generalised smear to justify decisions that they take to change particular provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act. We have heard again today, even on this measure, members of the Labor Party using words such as `loophole' and expressions such as `tax avoidance' and the like. The effect of that process has been to devalue greatly the quality of debates in this Parliament on taxation matters. Members of the Labor Party should understand that not every concession or deduction available in the taxation legislation, whether it has been put there by the Liberal Party or by the Labor Party, is a tax avoidance device. There are occasions when it is in the interests of the economy and the community and when it serves broad social goals for special deductions to be made available. Surely nobody imagines that the special taxation deduction made available for a dependent spouse is a tax avoidance device. Surely there are many other deductions available in the Income Tax Assessment Act which are not tax avoidance devices and should never be described as such. Members opposite should think rather more carefully before they brand every single concession in the Act that they would like to see removed as a device for tax avoidance, and when they seek to support everything they do in the name of attacking tax avoidance. For reasons that I shall demonstrate in a moment, when one indulges in that caper one must have a very long memory. Back in 1980 I, as Treasurer, introduced into the taxation legislation of this country for the first time a direct deduction for self-employed people in relation to superannuation. Prior to the 1980 Budget self-employed persons in Australia-in the main they were hundreds of thousands of small business men and women-had no superannuation cover, no superannuation provision at all. In August 1980 I introduced a tax deduction of $1,200 for the self-employed for superannuation and that was also made available to employed people who were not covered by superannuation schemes of their employers. My deduction of $1,200 meant that the local grocer, garage proprietor, doctor, solicitor, mercer and shopkeeper could, to the tune of $1,200, take out a superannuation arrangement and begin the long haul of restoring himself to the position then occupied by employees of large corporations who had superannuation arrangements, public servants and politicians, who also had such arrangements available. I thought that that was a very fair measure. It was designed to help the little bloke, the small businessman in Australia. But that was not the view of the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden. This is how he described it in August 1980-and these words have a particular significance for reasons I will explain in a moment. He said: How does the Government-- that is, the Fraser Government- justify this generous but regressive handout to the high income, self-employed professional in the heartland of the tax avoidance industry compared with the moderate income, self-employed skilled tradesman and farmer. He then went on to say: It is a rort for high income earners. All your bank rollers will be making a fortune out of it. Later he said: It is a rort for high income earners, a rort for your people. Those were the words of the then Leader of the Opposition. They constituted a ridiculous attack on a very fair measure. The supreme irony is that five years later a Treasurer in the present Labor Government increases that `rort' by 25 per cent because in the Budget last Tuesday night the Treasurer (Mr Keating), to his credit, increased that deduction. Mr Hurford —Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —I am glad that the Minister Assisting the Treasurer agrees that one of the good things in the Budget was the Treasurer's increasing the `rort', as described by Mr Hayden in 1980, by 25 per cent, lifting the deduction to $1,500. I welcome that and I am sure people around Australia who benefited from the Howard Budget initiative in 1980, described then by the Labor Party as a device to bankroll supporters of the Liberal and National Parties, will also welcome it. But that just demonstrates how stupid it is for anyone to engage in this kind of mindless smearing rhetoric in debates on taxation by suggesting that everything in the taxation legislation that gives someone a deduction or a concession is a device for tax avoidance. It is not a tax avoidance device to give self-employed people some encouragement to make superannuation provision for themselves. That has been recognised in this Budget by the present Government at long last. It was not recognised five years ago and that story demonstrates how studpid it is to engage in this tactic of smearing everything one does not like in the taxation legislation by saying that it is a rort for tax avoidance. It also demonstrates that people who do that type of thing have to have very long memories, because their words may come back to haunt them, and to embarrass them in a way they might not like. The second thing I would like to say is that this is the first debate on taxation which has taken place in this Parliament since the ignominious collapse of the taxation summit in July this year. It will come as no surprise to the Labor Party to know that it will be hearing a lot more from us about that ignominious collapse, and a lot more from members of parliament generally about the issue of taxation. We have heard a lot about trilogies and we are going to have quite a trilogy of events in September. We will have the national wage case and the statement on taxation, and no doubt we will also have quite a number of other significant economic events during the month of September. I give notice to the Labor Party that it will be subjected, so far as we are concerned, to a very searching questioning and challenge on the issue of taxation reform. No Treasurer in the history of this country has established such high expectations about taxation reform as has the present Treasurer. Nobody stomped the country with the arrogance and the cocksuredness of the present Treasurer. Nobody made such extravagant claims about his capacity to deliver tax reform as did the present Treasurer. In the final analysis, of course, he was reduced to abject failure and humiliation by the action of none other than his own Prime Minister. Just as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made a tawdry deal in a room in the Canberra International Motor Inn which effectively scuttled the Treasurer's dreams of tax reform, so the risk is that the Prime Minister will make an equally tawdry deal in another hotel room-perhaps that beloved of members of the industrial relations club in Melbourne, close to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, in relation to the question of wage discounting. We will have plenty of opportunity in this Parliament to debate the failure of this Government to deliver real tax reform. We will have plenty of opportunity to remind the Australian public that this Government promised so much on tax reform but delivered so little. We will have plenty of opportunity to remind people that the Government is going to give us a capital gains tax that nobody wants. The Prime Minister runs around the country saying that the reason he backed off changing the tax mix was that the majority of the community did not want it; yet he is going to go ahead with the capital gains tax. What evidence is there that the majority of the community wants a capital gains tax? Is this another example of the Prime Minister using double standards? Of course, we will have an attack on fringe benefits by this Government, which not only will discriminate against the private sector compared with the public sector, but also will usher a new craze into industrial relations law, the craze of the arbitrated allowance. In future, industrial relations advocates will put arbitrated allowances at the top of their logs of claims because, under the Government's fringe benefits proposals, arbitrated allowances are not to be subject to the 46 per cent fringe benefits tax. This is a timely opportunity not only to remind the House of the folly of the smear, particularly in relation to taxation avoidance, and of how that can have embarrassing consequences for those who use it, but also to remind the Parliament that for the first time since the collapse of the great taxation fiasco at the summit a couple of months ago, taxation will remain very near the top of the agenda in this Parliament. We look forward with great interest to what the Government has to say in the September tax package. There is a lot in it that the public will not like. There is a lot of explaining to be done by this Government on the question of taxation. Most of all, a lot of explaining will have to be done as to why the high expectations that it created about tax reform have not been delivered, and why it is that at the end of the day all that we shall be left with are the nasties of option A. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(6.14) —I welcome the opportunity to enter this debate on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill because I am strongly committed to the amendments and the whole thrust of the Government's superannuation legislation. At the heart of that legislation lies the problem with which this Government has been faced. Despite the words of the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the taxation system is being extensively overhauled. The reason it is being overhauled is that the high flyers have constantly avoided their responsibility to pay their way. Nowhere is this more evident than in superannuation legislation. The fact is that the more technical the legislation, the more the opportunities are found to rip it off. We have a situation where within five minutes of the introduction of new legislation, people in this industry are dreaming up proposals to redirect investment to a new plan based on a new loophole. What is always the attraction? In every advertisement it is `tax free'. That is what this Bill is forced to address. Let us put aside the nonsense of previous speakers who cannot come to grips with the legislation. They do not want to come to grips with it because they do not like the fact that this Bill attacks techniques that they sponsored and encouraged as a government. Worse than that, during the last election campaign, they peddled lies to use as scare tactics on retiring workers. In my electorate I have talked with many workers who have been led to believe that they would lose a third of their lump sum superannuation payments in tax. These beliefs were generated from lies, scare tactics and the peddling of totally distorted information, causing needless worry to people who thought that their long term plans were in jeopardy. I regard that as a disgrace, and I feel very strongly about it. I will give an example showing the facts for a person retiring many years into the future. Let us take, for example, a lump sum of $150,000, which could be partly made up of, say, $50,000 of the employee's own contributions over a period in the workforce. No tax is payable on that sum. There is no tax at all on the employee's contributions. Arising out of the Budget this week, $55,000 of the lump sum could be made up of employer contributions and interest, taxed at 15 cents in the dollar. That is only $8,250 of the whole $50,000, and only $8,250 of the first $100,000. A further $45,000 makes up the total of $150,000 and would be taxed at 30 cents in the dollar. Doing those sums, one has a lump sum of $150,000 attracting a tax of $21,750. That is an average rate of 14.5 cents-not 30 cents in the dollar, which the Opposition went around the electorate claiming. That example puts to rest a despicable lie peddled by our opponents during the election campaign. The example of 14.5 cents in the dollar is the position for the long term future for those genuinely retiring. Those retiring in the near future will pay almost no tax on their lump sum retirement benefits because contributions in respect of all work before June 1983 are exempt. They are the facts and that is what ought to be portrayed to the public. This legislation addresses three key areas. Firstly, society has changed, and people now retire from the work force in three different ways. They retire as ordinary age 65 retirees; they take optional early retirements; and they leave early through redundancy. Because of those changes in social patterns, we have now been forced to introduce new amendments, which in fact make clearer what are intended to be eligible termination payments under our legislation. There were areas which needed to be tidied up to make sure that bona fide retirees were not disadvantaged. Nothing in these changes does anything but improve the position for ordinary honest retirees. They were never intended to pay any more tax than provided for in the original proposals, and these amendments ensure that that remains the case. Secondly, the original Bill did not cover every situation, and there is a need to provide for some of these more specifically. For instance, it is now required that funds in estates must be released and paid out within 90 days of probate. Trustees receiving that payment will now be treated in the same way as the deceased taxpayer would have been. They are the sorts of examples that the legislation addresses. Thirdly, and most importantly, we must again remove further avenues for sophisticated tax minimisation. Regardless of what the honourable member for Bennelong says-I accept that his contribution was an honest statement of his views-we still have to bring more legislation in here to remove sophisticated tax minimisation techniques. Part of the approach now will be to require institutions paying annuities and supplements to make pay as you earn tax deductions from those payments. In other words the recipients of these fancy schemes will be made to join the ranks of the ordinary taxpayers, and I commend that. Let us look at some of these new schemes that, due to the Government's efforts, have been devised and at why we need to look at continuing superannuation legislation of this kind. Before we introduced our superannuation Bill in 1983 schemes had been devised to ensure, for instance, that high-fliers taking lump sums did not receive pensions because the funds were placed in a way that they could receive tax free income and tax free capital gains. When I say that they did not receive pensions I mean that they were using these placements to ensure that they did. At the same time, by qualifying for the full pension they were in fact distorting the intention of the system. There could be no better example than the widely publicised, self-acknowledged position of the former Liberal Prime Minister, Sir William McMahon-a millionaire receiving a pension. That had to stop. The introduction of tax on lump sums was directed at reversing this practice and encouraging retirees to convert all or a substantial part of their lump sum into tax free annuities. How have the high-fliers responded? It has almost become a game. They now structure a package to provide for a retirement annuity which qualifies for the tax free benefit and then, within five minutes, they convert it back to a tax free lump sum. That is not the spirit of the original Bill. It has never been the objective of superannuation schemes and it brings us to the heart of the whole issue. This Government is strongly committed to providing a retirement system which meets the needs of ordinary Australians, not the high-fliers, but the honest, hard-working people who have earned the right to security in retirement, to an income to preserve their living standards and to a lump sum which enables them to put in place some of their long term retirement goals and objectives. Nothing in our legislation inhibits those thrusts. Of course ordinary wage and salary earners, ordinary contributors to our economy, will be able to retire at the age of 65 or earlier or in fact leave through redundancy and still achieve these objectives. Nothing cuts across that. So what are we doing? With this legislation we are attempting to attack an attitude of beating the system and an attitude which our Government has been forced to come to grips with. I mentioned before the name of the game of the high-fliers, which is to beat the system. It is a high-flier game and it is played only by those who can afford it. For them it is a game but for us in Government it is not. It is not about beating the system, it is about beating the ordinary Australian and letting the little man pay, and it has to stop. This Government is losing patience. Our predecessors may have turned a blind eye to these tactics but we will not. Perhaps what I am about to say ought to be seen by the industry as something of a warning. These are very technical areas. It is very difficult to amend legislation without creating further opportunities to rip off the system. Somehow we have to differentiate between people who are genuinely retiring and who have need to be assisted, and those who are leading under sophisticated schemes designed to avoid paying their fair share of tax. It is almost impossible to draft legislation which caters for all circumstances. We need the co-operation of the community to ensure that it follows the spirit of our legislation. The tax avoidance or minimisation industry ought to take a lead from this. The Government cannot be expected to keep on closing loopholes while that industry goes on creating new ones. I assure honourable members that the Government could be pushed into a totally new direction, and I foreshadow that possibility. The Government may be forced to look closely at dismantling the Tax Act and establishing a new set of principles of equity. The difference at the moment is that the tax law is on the table, under the microscope, with the high-fliers looking for every potential loophole. The alternative may be for powers of specific definition to be transferred to the Commissioner of Taxation to establish practice guidelines to be followed. The industry would then have to establish, directly with the Commissioner, the policies and practices which would be acceptable for the future. That sort of proposal would send the high-fliers and those on the other side into apoplexy because they would have to get permission from the Commissioner for a scheme as he would look at the broad framework of principles. That is different from setting up legal schemes based on technical loopholes. I am telling the industry that if it does not want to force the Government down this track, it must back off. It must stop drawing up schemes for high-fliers and co-operate with the spirit of what the Government is on about. We are on about equity and fairness across our community. I am calling on the industry to heed the warning and to ignore the self interests of those opposite in the House who encouraged these schemes when they were in government. I ask them to join with in building onto the base of our revitalised economy for a fairer Australia in the future. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(6.27) —In closing the debate I thank all members who have taken part. Many contributions made only passing reference to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill, but I except from that the contributions of the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) and the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow). The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), on the other hand huffed and puffed about taxation reform; the usual speech which we hear from him on these debates. But we do not forget just what work was left in taxation reform when he left the Treasury. In summary, this Bill is another example of the Hawke Labor Government's resolution to make the taxation system a fairer one, to get rid of avoidance and evasion wherever it raises its ugly head. This legislation closes loopholes found by the smart guys and in this case in relation to the taxation treatment of lump sum superannuation and kindred payments. I have no doubts that those same smart guys will find more loop- holes, and every time they do we will close them. As was pointed out by the honourable member for Canning, if only the Government were supported by the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats in bringing down retrospective legislation-in other words supporting the honest taxpayers against the cheats-we would not need Bills such as this because there would not be any point in people looking for loopholes. But the friends of the cheats are preventing that from happening. In talking about loopholes, within the last two days it has come to the attention of the Taxation Office that another exploitation of the eligible termination payments provisions mentioned in this Bill is taking place. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) will be making a Press statement this evening on the Government's intention to close off this latest scheme. If I had a few more moments I would give the House details of that; instead I draw attention to his Press release which we are expecting later today. I commend the Bill to the House and once again thank those who have taken part in the debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(8.00) —This Budget, like all Budgets, reveals the true character of a government. Government members-Hear, hear! Mr PEACOCK —Indeed, honourable members should say `Hear, hear', because it is in a Budget that a government shows whether it has the capacity to govern for the benefit of all Australians and whether it has the vision and the ability to give stability and direction not just to stock markets and money markets but to small business, to farmers, to families and to other ordinary Australians. The Budget gives any government a special opportunity to show whether it has the determination and the political will to confront courageously the economic challenges facing Australia. Honourable members will hardly be surprised when I remind them that Leaders of the Opposition traditionally criticise governments in speech such as my speech on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) tonight. Of course, I intend doing just that, but before doing so I wish to outline the thrust of the Opposition strategy. Our program will make Australia the great country we know it to be. We propose overall tax reform, and immediate tax relief for families through income splitting and child care rebates. We propose major and extensive reductions in the size, power and cost of government by eliminating programs that do not do the job and by eliminating waste and duplication in the Public Service. We propose expenditure reform, including reform to the Medicare system to provide better service by allowing private competition, which would stop the cost spiral that is eating up our public funds while services deteriorate. The Opposition proposes to sell off government enterprises such as the Australian Industry Development Corporation, Medibank Private and the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. We will review the role, structure and level of government ownership and control of all other governement enterprises such as the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, Aussat Pty Ltd, Trans Australia Airlines, the Australian National Line, Telecom Australia, the Commonwealth Bank and the Pipeline Authority. We will judge what would be in the best interests of the consumer and the taxpayer in order to determine whether those enterprises are to be transferred to the private sector, with preferential access to be offered to all those working for those corporations. The Opposition proposes to institute a total program to get rid of big government interference and over-regulation and a program designed to end the Government's contribution to the cost-price spiral which is destroying our export industries, particularly the rural industry. We will give the farming community the policy it needs to increase its export competitiveness, provide incentives in the reduction of input costs and encourage investment in agriculture. We propose reform of the industrial relations system, allowing bargaining outside the existing tribunals, making industrial agreements enforceable at law, and protecting the freedom of employees to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to join a union. We have policies aimed at maintaining our international competitiveness and at creating jobs. Furthermore, let me put it bluntly again that we propose the abolition of Labor's taxes on savings and investment. We will abolish the assets test and Labor's increased tax on lump sum superannuation. This is a commitment to governing in the interests of all Australians; it is not the commitment of honourable members opposite, who believe in governing in the interests of trade union leaders and Labor factions. The whole direction of our policy is aimed at ensuring that our country grows, that is stays competitive on the international market and that there is maximum opportunity for all, including our young people. With reference to young people, we welcome the recent change in Labor's approach towards the traineeship concept and away from make-work schemes, but we do not believe that those changes go far enough. On Sunday, in my address to the nation, I will outline the coalition's approach to youth unemployment. At best the document that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) brought down on Tuesday is only half a Budget. It is that half of the Budget that is left over after the Government's failure to achieve any tax reform. All the hype and hyperbole that poured forth, week after week, from this Treasurer, promising the newest deal came to nothing. The confusion, the concern and the disarray led to the reality that on Tuesday night we did not hear anything at all about taxation; we will be told about it in September. This is the new approach of the Government. It has brought down half a Budget. It precedes the new taxes that the Government will announce in September. Frankly, Tuesday night's Budget Speech will probably be the longest Budget Speech in history. It started last Tuesday and it will not end until some time in September. Tuesday night's Budget demonstrated the Government's failure to achieve the goal set for it by none other than the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I ask honourable members to remember that he said: I have now set myself a goal for the second term of the Hawke Government; that is that we will destroy once and for all the myth that the ALP is the party of high taxation. The record now shows that it is not a myth that Labor is the party of high taxation; it is a reality. The Budget marks the end of the Hawke Government's attempts at tax reform, leaving average weekly wage earners to pay devastatingly high rates of tax, and it signals new taxes on savings and investment. Do honourable members remember that in 1983 the Prime Minister promised that he would cut taxes for 99 per cent of the community? This year, the Prime Minister said: Our marginal tax rates ar biting in too early. They are disincentives and people rightly feel that they've got too high a rate of personal tax. So for obvious reasons of personal hardship, incentives and economic effiency we've got to bring those rates down and bring them down substantially. Those were the promises. The reality of this Budget is that Australians will be paying higher income taxes than ever before. In only two years the tax grab from pay as you earn taxpayers will have increased by 29 per cent. This financial year, three-quarters of a million people will be pushed into higher tax brackets. Half a million more Australians will be thrust into the 46c in the dollar rate and another quarter of a million will have jumped from paying 46c to paying 60c. All up, well over two million Australians will face marginal tax rates of 46c in the dollar, or even higher. It is not just that the Government failed to reform the tax system. It will now impose new taxes in September. The Government is still in such a state of disarrary that it could not even include these new tax proposals in its Budget Speech last Tuesday night. What the Government intends is clear and honourable members know what it intends-a capital gains tax, including a death duty and a gift duty, and taxes which discriminate against individual enterprise and effort. Twice the Prime Minister backed down on tax reform. Why did he back down? He surrendered to the Australian Council of Trade Unions officials and to the pressure from the Left and Centre Left factions. It is very interesting to recall the reason that he gave for his back down. The reason for the back down and the withdrawal of his tax package was that he felt it must have widespread community support. This, he said, was his ninth principle of tax reform. Like some midget Moses on the Mount, he came out with nine principles of tax reform and relied on the withdrawal of his tax reform package because, he said, it must have widespread community support. I ask members of the Government opposite: If that was the reason they withdrew the package, will they tell me where the widespread community support is for capital gains taxes? Where is the widespread community support for death duties and gift duties? It does not come from the Australian people, and they know it. The Australian people have said no to these taxes. The demand that the Prime Minister impose these taxes comes simply from the ACTU and from the Left and the Centre Left, and ordinary Australians will have to suffer. Our stand is clear. We are totally opposed to any new capital gains tax, death duties and gift duties. When we are elected to government, as we will be at the next election, we will revoke them. As has been shown in the United States of America and elsewhere, more taxes on capital gains only hit investment and jobs. The Government's failure to reform the tax system is symptomatic of its failure to take tough decisions in crucial areas, decisions which the Prime Minister is always talking about. We have heard him time and again talking about the need to take the tough decisions. How tough it is being Prime Minister! He has to take all these tough decisions. He wanted the job and he has taken the money, now he ought to earn it. He ought to start taking the tough decisions instead of wringing his hands and anguishing about them. After this Budget, which was brought down on Tuesday night, those decisions remain to be taken. Australia still has a massive unemployment problem. We now face 8 per cent inflation this year, with the probability that it will increase over the next two years. People buying their own homes are paying the highest real interest rates for 50 years, the highest real rates of interest since the Great Depression. The farming community is being devastated, hit by a cost-price squeeze, a deterioration in the farm terms of trade and a record interest burden. Our national debt has increased by almost $17 billion since Labor came to power. That is a debt of $8,400 for every person in the work force and a debt that has to be paid. So whether it is unemployment, inflation, interest rates, the devastation of the farming community or national debt, the Government has not addressed it. We have welcomed the reduction in the deficit, but it is still the third highest deficit in Australia's history. If it blows out again it will fuel higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment. It has been possible to reduce the deficit only because of higher taxes and once-off windfall gains, certainly not by permanent changes. These are the problems and the Government had to address them in a fundamental way, but it has not. This Budget rests on very high expectations of economic growth. To achieve those expectations our economy would have to grow faster than that of any other country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Economic commentators are very sceptical, to put it mildly, that the high economic growth forecast for 1985-86 will be achieved. Some forecasts! I have noted the references to rubbery figures. We have hardly gone into it tonight, but it is interesting to pose a question about the arithmetic. Who did the arithmetic? Was it Jim Cairns or Junie Morosi? If Australia does not achieve the growth the Treasurer predicts, we are in deep trouble and that can be put succinctly at the feet of the Treasurer. If the target is not achieved, a higher deficit, more inflation, higher interest rates, higher unemployment and higher taxes will be sure to follow. For Australia's sake we want the luck to hold, but hoping that luck holds is not the way to secure Australia's economic well-being. What is required is taking the decisions that the Government does not have the political will to take-decisions which are crucial to secure a sustained economic recovery in which all Australians can share. But the Government has avoided the hard decisions on reducing its own expenditure and also on wages. Let us take them both. First, let us take government expenditure. In 1984-85, government in this country took more than 44 per cent of the community's resources and on Tuesday night's figures the Commonwealth Government alone will be taking a further $5,328m in 1985-86. There is a small comfort in the fact that the level of government expenditure is at least below the 1984-85 record. Yet the level of government expenditure this year will be the third highest in our history. The other two previous record levels were also set by Labor. Since it came to office Labor will have increased government expenditure by 41.5 per cent. By next year it will have added 14,500 public servants to the government pay-roll, an increase of 8 per cent; administrative costs of government bureaucracy have risen an alarming 37.3 per cent in three Budgets and will rise a further 7 per cent in real terms in 1985-86; and government debt has increased 43 per cent and the annual interest liability has risen from $3.4 billion to $6.7 billion. The Hawke Government has chosen to make itself the biggest spending, biggest borrowing, biggest taxing government in Australia's peacetime history. Last May the Government promised to cut spending by over $1 billion. Remember the big statement about cutting expenditure by over $1 billion? Budget Paper No. 3 has now revealed what this Government means by restraint in expenditure. We now know that, having made some rubbery cuts in May, the Government committed itself to new spending initiatives costing $1,459m. We know that the Government's administrative expenses alone will increase well beyond $1 billion in 1985-86, an increase of 15 per cent in 1985-86. Some masterly show of restraint, some masterly guidance by a person described as the world's greatest Treasurer! To put it more accurately, I think he is Elizabeth Bay's greatest Treasurer. As with taxes and government expenditure, so too with wages. Let us look at wages. The Treasurer, after all, was not prepared to lay it down with certainty or certitude. The Treasurer was unwilling or unable either in the Budget Speech or since to take a straightforward stance on permanent discounting of wage indexation for the full effect of the fall in the dollar. Discounting goes right to the heart of whether Australia is going to have low inflation, economic growth and more jobs in the next years. The Australian dollar is worth 20 per cent less than it was at the beginning of the year. This is some judgement by the world of what it thinks of this economy. However, there has been one positive result of the fall of the dollar-the competitive edge given to our industries. It has made our goods cheaper and easier to sell. However, if wages now increase to compensate for the higher cost of some goods, our industries obviously lose their competitive advantage and the benefits to our industries and farms are lost. The vicious circle of lost opportunities, higher inflation and lost jobs commences. The Treasurer had the responsibility and the obligation to say that the Government supports full discounting for the impact of the devaluation of the dollar. The Treasurer should have made the position clear and non-negotiable. However, he did not. With this Government's shabby record of deals with the unions, there was never a greater need for it to make an unequivocal commitment to put the national interest above that of the ACTU leadership. That commitment, of course, has not been forthcoming. Instead, we have had a series of `wink, wink, nudge, nudge' exchanges between the Treasurer and Mr Crean of the ACTU. On the basis of the Government's record there is more than a sniff of yet another hotel room deal. The issue of wage discounting is far too important for deals with trade union officials. Anything less than full discounting, any pay-off to the ACTU down the track, for example, on its spurious claim for a productivity increase, means that Labor is damaging the best interests of our nation and our best hopes for recovery. Clear analysis of this Budget demonstrates that it is a Budget of lost opportunities, a Budget which offers little to ordinary Australians and a Budget which did not serve their interest. This Budget, framed in opportune economic circumstances, was the opportunity to come to grips with some of our major and most persistent problems. But that opportunity was not taken. I feel that this Government will not have such an opportunity again. The coalition does not promise, like this Government, to continue on the big tax, big government, big debt path while average Australian wage earners are sacrificed and the incentive to work hard and to save is destroyed by higher interest rates, new taxes, spiralling tax margins and inflation. As I outlined earlier, we are committed to a new direction. This Budget should have been the platform for sustaining the recovery for the rest of the decade. It fails because, as I said, it does not even address, let alone attack, many of the fundamental weaknesses in the economy. The approach in the Treasurer's Budget statement generally is to ignore the problems, whereas they should have been a focal point. Instead, the Treasurer chose to continue bragging about the alleged growth rate, with the risks of developing in Australia a lotus land mentality. The impending dangers to the economy are sometimes highlighted, not in the Treasurer's speech-no, the dangers are not going to come out there-but in the Treasury documents. However, there are no clues regarding government strategy to confront the problems. The overall effect is simply to put off the decision making and to build up significant dangers for the economy in the rest of the Government's term and beyond. The depth of Australia's problems is obvious when our economy is compared with the significant economies of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Let me list four major measures of Australia's current position. The first is that Australia has the highest real interest rate and, as the Confederation of Australian Industry said last week, this threatens business investment. Secondly, how could the Treasurer ignore the fact that Australia has the second worst current account deficit of all the major OECD economies, even worse than the United States as a proportion of gross domestic product? Thirdly, Australia has had by far the worst currency devaluation in the last year. Fourthly, even with wage discounting, Australia's inflation rate will be at least twice the forecast 3.5 per cent average of the major OECD trading countries in 1986. On top of these problems, there has been the alarming increase in both our national and external debt. These are the types of fundamental weaknesses which must be corrected before Australia can achieve sustained recovery. Any responsible government would have faced up to these problems in the Budget. But where does Australia stand on these fundamentals after the Budget? The fact is that there has been no attempt at all to confront these dangers. In the critical area of inflation the Treasurer provides no hope at all that Australia's inflation will be pulled back into line with our trading partners. The Government seems to be saying: `The problem is unavoidable, so let us just ignore it. Lets us hope that it will go away.' Again, the Treasurer seems to be saying that the Government might talk to the ACTU on discounting but not, of course, on the excessive underlying rate of inflation. The potential damage is enormous. As the highly respected Syntec organisation recently said: A setting in which Australian inflation approaches ten per cent while the average of our major trading partners is around 5 five per cent will be sufficient to set Australia back on the road to a balance of payments crisis again. Mr Burr —We are already there. Mr PEACOCK —The warning signals are indeed already there. They are already in the Treasury papers. They forecast the current account deficit to blow out even further from the record $10.2 billion in 1984-85. This is clearly dangerous and, in the Treasury's words, an unsustainable level. The danger is there. The Treasury papers tell us the position Syntec deals with it. It is obvious to all. The danger is critical, but it did not rate one word in the Treasurer's statement-not a word, let alone a line. There was not one word about a central weakness in the economy which threatens the recovery. Just as irresponsibly, the threat to investment of Australia's high interest rates scores only a few words from the Treasurer. Where are the sentences? Where is the detail? The fact is that underlying it all-I think honourable members on this side of the House would readily agree-the Treasurer does not know in which direction interest rates are going. The bond selling task is declining considerably in 1985-86. The Treasury-not the Treasurer-says that there will be only a little increase in corporate sector borrowing. So everything should point to a fall in interest rates. However, the Treasurer, so confident last year-he told us throughout the campaign that interest rates would fall throughout 1985-now refuses to come clean. We all know that there can be only one reason for that, which is that the Government knows that interest rates will be held at a high level by rising inflation and a weak dollar. The market has made its judgment on this Government and its economy, and that is why the Treasurer will not come clean on interest rates. The reality is that Australians deserve the truth. The danger for the years ahead is that high interest rates will not hit just the housing sector-that is bad enough-but other business investment as well. Business investment as a proportion of gross domestic product, fell to a 10-year low in 1984-85, and that drop occurred despite the expected stimulation from the devaluation, despite the incentive of the investment allowance phase-out, and despite the threat of a new capital gains tax. Those factors alone should have pushed private capital spending substantially higher in 1984-85; but even the Treasury forecasts no acceleration in the growth of business investment in 1985-86. The fact is that so far Australia's trade performance and investment levels are not yet showing what ought to be a text book response expected from a massive devaluation. It is just not there. The devaluation is certainly obvious in considerably greater domestic cost pressures but the offsetting gains are just not eventuating. It is not good enough to hope that these problems will just go away and that the internal and external problems of the economy will disappear, that if the Government does not talk about them it will wish them away. It is just not good enough. All these factors obviously increase the uncertainty surrounding the forecasts in the Budget. I have already referred to the basic uncertainties surrounding the Budget forecasts for growth and inflation. No wonder the Treasury sees the outlook as `surrounded by a range of possible outcomes for the economy'. No wonder the Reserve Bank of Australia in its annual report released today asserts: Predictions about financial conditions in 1985-86 are subject to a greater-than-usual degree of uncertainty. The responsible approach would have been to confront the dangers ahead and to take into account the doubts about the forecasts. Instead, the Government has chosen to gamble. Not only has the Government gambled on discounting and on the growth forecast; it has also gambled that it is possible to reduce the deficit in the next two years without any expenditure cuts. To put it mildly, that is a move fraught with danger. Australians have very good reason to be apprehensive about the level of Budget deficits in the next few years. The fact is that the forecast reduction in the deficit in 1985-86 has been achieved only by a significant increase in the tax take and by a windfall revenue gain from devaluation and Reserve Bank trading. These windfall gains are hardly likely to be repeated unless, of course, there is a further sharp decline in the Australian dollar, which may save the Government's trilogy but cause Australia further major problems. The other pressures on the deficit are obviously substantial. First, a slowing in economic growth is probable and normally would reduce tax revenue in real terms. The Government will clearly have to rely for revenue on more fiscal drag, with further hundreds of thousands of Australians moving into higher tax brackets. Second, the cost of the Government's new spending proposals will double in 1986-87 to over $1.4 billion. It is now certain that the cost of these new spending proposals in a full year will exceed the potential savings from the expenditure cuts announced in the May mini-budget. We know how rubbery many of those alleged cuts were. The sad reality is that no one will expect a Labor Government to cut expenditure in the next two years leading up to an election. As a result, there is now a real risk that the Budget deficit will blow out again, fuelling the accelerated inflation already obvious in the economy. The Government cannot justify that sort of gamble. It just cannot justify such a big gamble with the economy. The fact is that the Government lost its nerve on expenditure cuts. Not only has it thrown in the towel on tax reform but it has also given up on expenditure cuts and on fundamental dangers to recovery. All these facts point to considerable problems for the economy in 1986 and in 1987, problems which could clearly have been avoided if the Government had taken advantage of the opportunities available. All these facts point to major cost increases in the next few years, to a decline in Australia's international competitiveness, adding up to a threat both to investment and to jobs. They point also to massive increases in Australia's foreign debt-a net debt which has increased by $60m a day in the last year and which has doubled in the last two years. Annual repayments on the debt have reached a staggering 33 per cent of Australia's total exports. It is out of control and it is a threat to Australia's economic stability. Yet that debt, a dangerous development, did not even rate one word in the Treasurer's Budget Speech. As I have said, this is paralleled by the major increase in the national debt. Interest on the national debt has risen to become the third largest item in government expenditure behind only social security and payments to the States. It now exceeds even spending on defence, and that interest is costing every working Australian around $19 a week. In other words, the average Australian wage earner is now working the first two hours of each week just to pay for the debts created by the Government's spending spree. That is some kind of incentive! But it is not the kind of Australia we will hand on to the next generation. The Treasurer did not even think that debt was important enough to mention in his speech. The Treasurer justifiably gave a lot of time to monetary policies. The problem is that he said nothing concrete and he did nothing to overcome the uncertainty in the funding markets. The large increases in both the narrow and broad measures of money supply are at least partly due to the loose money policies followed by the Government before the last election, for political reasons and political reasons alone, they are also partly due to the distorting effects of deregulation of financial markets. For this reason it may not yet be appropriate to reimpose an M3 target which is subject to current uncertainty. However, the Government needs to develop some performance criteria so that the market can judge whether the Government is meeting its policy objectives. In any case, it is certainly time for the Government to provide considerably more information on the rationale and on the direction of its conduct of monetary policy. Again, more information is only vaguely promised in the Budget. Instead, the Budget spends a lot of time justifying the Government's stance on targets. All the Government says about the future conduct of monetary policy is that it will `be firm'. The Government will have only itself to blame if financial markets misread its objectives. The Government has ducked, it has weaved, it has vacillated, and at last it has talked in terms of being firm. Was there any indication of the how, of the when and of the why of the measure? No. Finally, I emphasise again the critical importance of wage discounting to Australia's economic future. In the Government's biggest test yet it lost its nerve and caved in to the Australian Council of Trade Unions on tax reform. As I said earlier, no Treasurer in Australia's history has used more hype or more hyperbole about what he would do. It was to be option C or nothing, and he got nothing. That was the Government's biggest test yet, and it caved in again to the ACTU. The type of half-hearted approach to discounting outlined in the Budget Speech certainly gives us no confidence that the Government will take any strong position on wage restraint. There can be no reason to compromise on this issue. We remember the Prime Minister's own form of hype and hyperbole, and he believed that he could prove it. When challenged, he said: `I can sustain this'. We recall that he told us that the reward for full discounting would be 100,000 jobs. The opportunity for 100,000 jobs can hardly be negotiable. It cannot be compromised by any back room deals, by any trade-offs for subsequent catch-up or productivity claims or work value cases or the details of some capital gains tax, and if the Government cannot convince the ACTU on discounting or has to give some kind of trade-off, frankly the accord is worth nothing. A full-blooded approach to replacing the weak statement in the Budget on discounting is at least a start towards recovering the ground lost in this Budget. There should be the fullest commitment to full indexation and no more playing around with the incestuous group that will be presenting cases before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission itself. Overall, this is a Budget which missed the opportunities to provide a real platform for sustained recovery. It shows up the Government's lack of real political will to attack the immediate dangers such as wage discounting and the uncertainty on monetary policy, and it fails even to address the underlying threats to recovery such as inflation, Australia's international uncompetitiveness and the levels of our national and external debts. These problems will not just go away by ignoring them. It is time for the Government to stop feuding and fumbling and to face up to the dangers now. As I have said, the Government has taken a huge gamble with the economy. That gamble was never necessary and can never be justified. Australians are entitled to expect more from any Budget and from any government. As a consequence, I move: That all words after `that' be omitted with a view to inserting words in place thereof: The House condemns the Budget because- (1) It is only half a Budget which fails to outline any approach to the urgent problems of tax reform and tax relief; (2) It fails to remove the threat of new taxes on investment and jobs, such as a capital gains tax which will include death duties and gift taxes. Mr Young —Ha, ha! Mr PEACOCK —I pause to note that the Minister laughs. He sought to evade duties and taxes. He thinks he can laugh his way to avoiding a capital gains tax, death duties and gift duties, but the only way he will avoid them is by having us in power and getting rid of them. The Freedom of Information Act will be used to every extent to see that he does not evade his. He is Australia's worst evader and has no reason to laugh at the threat of a capital gains tax that will affect all Australians. The amendment continues: (3) It condemns 750,000 Australians to higher marginal tax brackets during the year; (4) It fails to address the fundamental problems facing the Australian economy, particularly high inflation, the lack of international competitive ness and the need for further cuts in Government spending; (5) It fails to provide clear direction on the Government's approach to discounting wage indexation for the effects of depreciation of the dollar and so potentially destroys its employment benefits; (6) It fails to move towards the deregulation of labour markets required to give all Australians the chance for a job; and (7) It burdens Australia with the threat of continued high interest rates which hurt not only home- buyers but hit business investment and jobs. Mr SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr SPEAKER —I point out to honourable members that it would assist the Chair if, when second reading amendments are put, they are provided for checking; otherwise there is a delay in seeing whether the amendment is in order. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State (8.47) —First of all, Government members would like to congratulate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) on taking a step closer tonight to his goal of being Leader of the Opposition. He obviously played some part in writing the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) because it would have to go down in history as the worst response to a Budget by any opposition leader since World War I. He made Billy Snedden sound like Martin Luther King, and his was almost the worst speech we have heard in here. The Government will reply to a couple of the Liberal Party's Budget speeches, including the one just delivered by the Leader of the Opposition. It has fallen on deaf ears, and that applies to his own members because most of them had to fight to keep awake during the speech. We will reply also to the speech of the Liberal Party National President because he also happens to be telling us what the Liberal Party will do when it comes into Government. I know honourable members opposite are all fighting fit and wanted to get back into the Parliament but I had the feeling that when we got back to Parliament and lined ourselves up on both sides of the House somehow our position in the polls would start to go up when people observed this ratbag group of people who put themselves forward as the alternative Government. They are led by the person who just made the speech to Australia on what they would do. Almost any person in the Opposition, including those in cockies corner-that includes the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter)-could have done better than their Leader tonight. Fair dinkum, it was the worst speech we have heard. There were no details, nothing about what would happen under a coalition government. I will go through a few of the things that the leader talked about and some of the suggestions he made. Of course he talked about eliminating government programs. That is a great general term used in discussing how to cut the deficit. But we are waiting to hear what those programs are. The reason I say that we have to consider the comments of John Valder in our speeches tonight is that leading John, the President of the Liberal Party, said on that videotape, which is harder to get hold of now than Linda Lovelace-you cannot get for love nor money the video he gave out to the Westpac Banking Corporation-that the only area that can really be cut is the welfare area. That is where the Liberal Party is going to attack if it comes back to power. So we need not worry about the Leader of the Opposition saying, `We are going to eliminate government programs', because when he says that we refer back to his leader, the President of the Liberal Party, who tells us that that is the area in which he is going to do it. Then the Leader of the Opposition spoke in general terms about privatisation and what will happen with all the government agencies. There is a fair test that ought to be applied to privatisation in Australia, which I will go into in a bit more detail. The Liberal Party and the National Party have promised that on coming to power again they will build the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. The Government of Australia has not done that yet because it would not be economic sanity to do it at this stage. A report estimated that it would cost about $600m. Why does not the Opposition ask private enterprise to build it now, before the Government does? Then it would not have to sell it. Why does it not go out into the market place to see who in private enterprise has $600m to spare to build the Alice Springs-Darwin railway? It would not have to interfere with Telecom, the Commonwealth Bank or any- thing else; it could do it with a project that is already on the books. Honourable members opposite have been saying the same thing for three years. A check of the records of the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong, will show that they have been saying exactly the same thing for three years. One would have thought that in this, the first year of the second term of the Hawke Labor Government, they would have thought of something else to say about the Budget; the position in Australia; where we are heading; the welfare of the Australian community; jobs for the kids and educational standards. But none of that; it is all doom and gloom. The Liberal Party is so upset that we are putting so many people to work, building so many houses and spending so much money on education. The Liberals see that there can be no good at all done by this Government because it will lead to a position where people are in the mood to re-elect this Government, not to elect the Opposition to replace the Government for the job it is doing. The people will look firmly at the decisions that have been taken since March 1983 in order to decide whether they are better off putting their future with us or taking their chances with the Liberal-National Party. The National Party has been singularly silent about the impact of privatisation on some of its constituents. The Liberal Party is not talking just about things in the cities; some of the people who will be affected worst by its crazy ideas are people who live in the country and remote areas of Australia. They are the people who will have to pay for the ideas coming from the Liberal Party side of the Parliament. National Party members had better take a close look and start speaking up about it before it becomes a firm Liberal Party policy. On each occasion that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has presented the Budget we have been told that we will not get down the deficit and there will not be economic growth. What has occurred? If one looks at the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in 1983 and 1984 and the speech of the Leader of the Opposition tonight, those five speeches have all told us the same thing-we will not get down the deficit, there will not be economic growth and there will be no chance for the jobless. What are the facts? There has been economic growth year after year and now into the future. The deficit is down and there have been real cuts in Government outlays; not fiddling with the edges, as John Valder says when talking about privatisation. We have had real growth in jobs. Of course we have a long way to go, but we are creating jobs a lot faster than people are coming on to the labour market at present. It means that if we can keep going the growth in Australia, together with our educational and training programs, there will be the chance to slash the number of unemployed people in this country. That is our responsibility and that is what we will do. That should be observed by the Opposition if it is rightfully playing its political role in Australia. It should not be standing up saying that everything we are doing is wrong, because what it has criticised in the last two years has proved to be futile. We have been able to perform in all of those areas. I ask honourable members opposite to look at these things when they talk about what will occur. I notice from the Leader of the Opposition's speech tonight that there are now two tiers of privatisation; the definite sell off and a commitment to a look and sell off as the second phase of the Liberal-National Party policy. What will it do? John Valder and the others say that this is all gung ho; this is what Margaret Thatcher is doing and it has been a great success. She has only 14 per cent unemployed under her privatisation scheme. Perhaps we can get another 6 per cent unemployed if we sell off some of the great traditional Government institutions of this country, instead of concerning ourselves to see that they are running efficiently, which again has been the responsibility faced up to by this Government. We are a very lonely country. We do not border other countries; we are way down here by ourselves and we have 15 million people. The Opposition had better look upon the role of Australia a little bit differently than it looks upon other countries when it decides that perhaps something they experiment with can be transferred overseas and imposed on Australia and work successfully. Let us look at the assets of the institutions the Opposition is talking about selling: Trans Australia Airlines, $330m; Qantas Airways Ltd, $895m; the Pipeline Authority, $260m; Telecom Australia, $11.5 billion; Australia Post, $290m; Australian National, $250m; Australian National Line, $442- Mr Spender —Where did you get those figures from? Mr YOUNG —These are the figures given by Senator Peter Rae in a Senate committee report. Senator Rae is a member of the Liberal Party, I think. Let us look at what would occur under these circumstances. First of all, we are a major trading partner. The Opposition wants to sell off our shipping line so that we can deal with flags of convenience. We will have to ring up Panama to find out if we can get ships to carry our goods, instead of building an efficient shipping line for ourselves, on which we are not totally dependent, but which we are building to carry the goods grown in Australia. Let me get back to the point I was making to the members of the National Party about Telecom and Australia Post. In Mount Murchison, one of the isolated areas, it costs $1,350 to put on the phone under Telecom at present. Under the crazy ideas of the Liberals one will have to pay between $20,000 and $25,000 to put on the phone in the bush. People in the bush should realise what these crazy Liberals will do to them. Telecom and Australia Post have been able to give these services only because of cross-subsidisation. People in the cities pay more than they have to in order to keep down the cost on people in country areas. When we ask the Liberals where the money will come from to subsidise people in the bush, they say that they will look at it when they get into Government. That is not good enough for the constituents who live in the bush. They have enough hardships to put up with without being carried along by fairyland ideas that will be told to them after the election which the Liberals hope to be able to win. Do not forget that there will be substantial, not small, increases in the charges to everybody who lives in a country area if people fall for the crazy ideas of the Liberal-National Party on Telecom and Australia Post. Qantas is one of the great airlines of the world and the safest airline in the world. We have to sell it off, the Liberals said, because it is a government agency, so let us get rid of it. What should we do-sell it to Singapore Airlines so that we have to ring up Singapore and book a seat on Australia's airline? What will we do with some of the other instrumentalities? What has the Commonwealth Bank done to attract the damage the Liberal and National Parties want to inflict on it? This institution has been with us for decades and has serviced millions of Australians. We have to get rid of the Commonwealth Bank-for what purpose? Will it be of any benefit to any of those people who bank with the Commonwealth? No; the Opposition just wants to give the profits to somebody else. We have news for the Opposition. It should realise that people in the private sector are not interested in those areas of Government enterprise that lose money; they are interested only in those areas of Government administration that make money. Private enterprise will be onto the Opposition like vultures to take the profits of Government administration and leave the rest with the Government. The Opposition tells us that it will come up with a policy of subsidising all of the people in the country and ensuring no one else is affected, maintaining all the Government agencies that lose money and selling off everything that makes money. What hypocrisy it is when we hear that we cannot take any notice of John Valder; that the President of the Liberal Party does not speak on these policies. Westpac did not ask the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to do the video; it asked John Valder, the President of the Liberal Party, to tell us what will happen if the Opposition wins the next election. The people of Australia are entitled to listen to John Valder because he has a lot more say in running the Liberal Party than the grease-ball from Denison; he has not got much say at all. Let us have a look at some of the other things that have been happening in Australia so that people can make up their minds. In respect of industrial disputes, we have now achieved the lowest number of industrial disputes in this country since 1968. One must go back 17 years to reach the same level of industrial disputation as we have now. On numerous occasions throughout his speech the Leader of the Opposition wanted to tell us about this `dreadful accord' that the Government has with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. One of the great strengths of the economic recovery in this country in the past two and a half years has been the accord between the Government and the trade unions and the consultations with the employers on where Australia is heading. That is the reason we have people at work and not out on the streets. That is why it has been 17 years since we have had such a low level of disputation. The question of jobs has been breaking almost everybody's heart in Australia. A decade ago we called this the lucky country, but here we have witnessed the second highest level of unemployed youth in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Here we were thinking we had been born in such a fortunate place but we carried the stigma of allowing Australia to build the second highest rate of youth unemployment in the Western world. Nothing was done about it under the Liberals. They spent a couple of million dollars on the community youth support scheme and then they tried to cut that out. When we came to power we faced a dilemma-we had to try to put the policies on education, training and tertiary institutions into place in order to do something for the youth of this country, to give them some hope of sharing in the prosperity of the future and the immediate prosperity of the economic gain that we have been able to make. There is no fudging of figures here, as there was in the 1977 Budget. In Australia now there are 410,000 more jobs than there were in March 1983. If the economy continues to grow as forecast by the Treasurer in the Budget, our promise to create more than 500,000 jobs by March 1986 will be far surpassed. That is an achievement of which everyone in Australia can be proud. And that is not the end of it because the package of ideas put forward as part of our youth policies to try to persuade and influence as many young people as possible to finish their time in school instead of going into the job market, to give them the opportunity of going to tertiary institutions to make sure that they are equipped by the educational facilities which should be available in this country to meet the requirements of industry in the 1990s and the next century, is an absolute requirement. We must provide for the young people. We have started. We have had to spend a lot of money to do it but we have started. Yet, as the Treasurer has said, we have got the deficit down below $5 billion while putting in store these policies which will be of great strength to these areas that have missed so much in the past. A total of $1.2 billion more is being spent in 1985-86 on education than was spent in the last year of the Fraser Government. Are these some of the things that John Valder wants to slash? Does the Opposition want to see more kids leaving school at 14 or 15, unskilled, untrained and undereducated, so that they are out there unemployed for the rest of their lives, being attracted to drugs and the other social problems that go with them? We must do something about the problems that were created during the 1970s and the early 1980s. All of us in this chamber have some responsibility for that, irrespective of the political party we belong to. Our expenditure on education and youth training and in the tertiary institutions is something that should have been done a long time ago. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) ridicules our housing record every day at Question Time but the fact is-these are not rubbery figures-that 151,000 new houses are being built this year. In the last year of the Fraser Government 105,000 new houses were built. That means that there is a 44 per cent increase. One's chances of getting a home today under the Hawke Labor Government are almost twice as good as they were in the last year of the Fraser Government. Is that not the dream of the Liberal and National Parties? Do they not want people to own their own homes? We have put tens of thousands of people back to work in the building industry. That is what running the country is all about. Then there is our first home owners scheme under which 143,000 young people have been brought on to the books as home owners since we took government in March 1983. Those are not rubbery figures. They are available for everyone to see and talk about. Yet we have the Leader of the Opposition telling us tonight that it is the end of the world because he is not the Prime Minister. My God, fancy making him Prime Minister! I turn to the social welfare area. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has drawn attention of the Government in the preparation of the Budget to the areas of greatest need. This Government is in no position to unload millions of dollars in any area, whether it be welfare, education, defence or whatever. But there are necessities which must be looked at. The Minister for Social Security, in carrying out his responsibilities, has persuaded the Government that there were some areas where extra money had to be made available. It has been made available. In some of these areas the increase in the funding per family in the two and half years has been something like 60 per cent. Those figures are not rubbery either; they are facts of life. The truth is that this has been an excellent Government for Australia. We have got things moving in every area, even in the area of defence. The Opposition always says that Labor never worries about the defence of Australia, yet even in that area we are spending more in real terms than the Fraser Government spent in its last year in office, when it performed dismally. Again this year the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has persuaded the Government that reduced spending is the wrong course to follow for the future of Australia. Thus, our defence spending has gone up in real terms. However, we have not been irresponsible in spending the taxpayers' money. We have been more than responsible. No one expected a deficit of less than $5 billion and the truth of the matter is that this Budget heralds the fact that Australia made a very right decision on 1 December last year and it is very much in the interests of the people to keep making the same decision for decades to come. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.08) —It was interesting to hear the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) telling us how privatisation works. He told us how big business was going to take everything over. That indicates purely and simply how this Government thinks-big government, big business, big unions. The Minister never thought that the small people of Australia might have an interest in buying into some of those properties, such as the banks. He never thought of the term `people ownership'. Yet that is how the socialist parties in Britain describe their policies of social ownership. Social ownership is ownership by the people and there is a difference between ownership by the people and ownership by government. People know what happens to their money and people will see that their own enterprises are run better. There is no need to sell enterprises to big business. When Telecom was sold in Britain, the maximum number of shares sold to anybody was 800 and two-thirds of the people who bought them have still got them. No doubt that includes a huge percentage of the workers-the 92 per cent of workers who are entitled to ownership of their own properties. The Government would sell to big business, just as it intends to sell the Belconnen Mall to big business. It would not think of selling it to the tenants out there, that would be too much. The Government does not like small business because small business is the wild card in the socialist pack. It is the biggest defence that we have against socialism. The Government does not like those small owner-driver truckies who go over the Queensland border, who would be condemned by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) with his big smart smile. The 700,000 small businessmen do a lot for Australia. Government members do not like them because their union bosses do not like them and that is the end of that. If Simon says they do not like them then they do not like them. Mr Wright —Where did you get that squeaky voice? Tell us now. Mr TUCKEY —Do not worry about the squeaky voice-you will get one if you come over here. Big government, big business and big unions-that is the only way the Government can perceive any assets of the nation being disposed of. Is it not amazing that even the new Parliament House carpets must have Simon's decree. Simon has said that the traditional means of carpet laying in Australia, contract laying by small businessmen who are very happy to make a quid at the rate they want, is no longer allowed. Somewhere, the carpet manufacturers of Australia must find enough wages carpet layers to lay the carpets in the new Parliament House and then they must guarantee them a job when the job is all over. The Government is backing that position, but it is almost an impossibility with a $6m carpet job. That is the sort of thing that is occurring. Some 151,000 new houses is a fine boast, but in the process the price of a house to the average buyer will be increased by about $10,000. Honourable members opposite can make up their minds whether they are happy about that. Admittedly, they have given people some money up front, but they will have to meet the extra payments over many years. Honourable members opposite know that they have overheated the market. Tonight we are talking about the Appropriation Bills. I say that advisedly. We are not talking about the Budget. We do not have one of those in the first sitting week of August any more. We have a serial Budget now. We get it in little dribs and drabs. It is fed out to us here and fed out to us there. In all of that, we have massive uncertainty in our business community. No one knows where he is heading, and the business community is making that very clear today. The Australian Financial Review reports Mr John Brunner as saying: We have this three-headed monster coming up, the national wage case, the review of the wages guidelines. . . The article continued: Many industrialists are sceptical that inflation can be held down to the forecast 8 per cent, and are uncertain as to whether the Government will be able to induce the ACTU to accept wage discounting necessary if the depreciation impetus is not to be dissipated . . . They don't believe there's going to be even the 1.25 per cent increase in exports due to the depreciation. We have Mr John McLeod of Conzinc Riotinto of Australia saying that it was unlikely to make massive investments. He continued: The idea of Australia with its huge balance of payments deficits and huge external debt taking on this role is ridiculous. We can't go on adding $10 billion a year to our external debt at the present level of investment . . . My own reaction to the Budget is wonderment as to how the country with the largest current account deficit in relation to GDP in the world can be gaily countenancing growing at 50 per cent ahead of the OECD. That is under the headline in the Australian Financial Review of Thursday, 22 August: `Business hesitates on investment'. Business is terrified by this Budget because, as our Leader has said, it is only half a Budget. It is a serial Budget. We started off on 14 May with our first crack at this serialised Budget. We were told that the Government would reduce expenditure by $1,259m. It has been pointed out that that figure is illusory. When we looked into it, we found that the Government would be selling $198m worth of assets-16 per cent of that so-called expenditure cut. I should like to be able to convince my bank manager that selling assets was a cut in operating expenses. There were $65m worth of revenue measures in there, and that included an attack of $40m on people buying pharmaceutical benefits. There was $278.8m, or 22 per cent of the cuts, which was directly negative to rural communities. What does the Government give them back in this serialised Budget today, in this book of accounts? It gives them back $26m; but even that is a fraud. How did we learn about the $26m? We learnt about it in this piece of typed paper. It is not in the Budget Papers. No, that was a last minute decision the Government made when it found that it would be getting a $22m windfall by anti-dumping duties on diammonium phosphate fertiliser. It has not given the farmers a penny. As far as other people in the rural communities are concerned, the people about whom the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) said that he did not have to worry, the cockies and their vote, the fuel bills of the workers out there and their other costs have gone through the roof. The Government is not even considering giving them this sort of roneoed cheap token assistance. What the Government has practised on the rural sector is a fraud, and it is amazing that rural people tolerate it. If they had had the sort of training that the Labor Party gives its people, they would not have stood quietly out there on the grass the other day; they would have kicked the door in. That is what honourable members opposite and their supporters would have done. Then we got the tax summit. The 750,000 people who are now going into higher marginal tax rates, with 250,000 going into the 60c bracket, were given the suggestion that they might get some relief. Let us work out what is happening with tax today. If someone gets a $10 wage increase, it will cost his employer $14, which he will pass on into the cost structure, and the employee will get $5 to take home after tax. That is the message for the working people today. It has been recently stated that someone setting out on average weekly earnings to work overtime so that he can pay cash for a motor car worth $10,000 will have to earn $18,700 to do it. That is the message the Government has given to people, but it gave them this great illusion. It had this wonderful tax summit which would help everything. We had this over-confident Treasurer (Mr Keating) strutting the stages of Australia, saying things such as: `We are not shrinking violets. We are not about to disappear when the first whiff of grapeshot passes the trenches'. Simon Crean threw a grape at him, and a rotten one at that, and he fell over. Grapeshot! I do not know what the Treasurer would do if he saw some grapeshot. If one were to wave gunpowder under his nose, he would faint. That is what we have seen of this man. But what a fraud he is to stand up and go on in the way he has. What has he done to the community? He told people, with absolute confidence, that we would have a retail tax. The community believed him. People did something that we would all expect them to do. They rushed out and brought things to beat the tax. That is pretty good, because the Budget figures show some increase in consumer activity. However it has been a disaster for many small business people, they restocked for what they thought would be an increase in consumer spending but they now find that no one wants it. Why is that so? It is because there will not be such a tax. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) killed that stone dead. He ran across town, and got himself into trouble again in a hotel room, and he changed the rules on Australia and on his Treasurer. So, there we were, back in the field of confusion, although every time people stopped for breath and expressed a little relief at the fact that they would not be faced with a big retail tax, or something else, the Government slipped in one of the nasties. The Government has got in negative gearing. It has been up and down a bit, of course, on some of the other measures, such as the proposed tax on services. I think the Government started to worry a bit about that. It has completely upset and nearly destroyed two very substantial labour-intensive industries-namely, the travel industry and the restaurant industry. Why is it that a business lunch is not necessarily an advertising procedure? No one is suggesting that a man who buys full page advertisements in the newspapers is not spending funds as a means of producing assessable income. I know businessmen who do every bit of business over a business lunch, and substantial business at that, business that creates employment for large numbers of people. In getting down to defining fringe benefits-the real fringe benefits which the Government seems to be dodging in the case of bank officers' interest-I do not mind those being taxed, but the Government should learn how to define them. The Lodge comes with the job, and I am sympathetic towards the Prime Minister. It is not that nice a place in which to live, anyway. When a house goes with a job, that is not necessarily a fringe benefit, either, particularly if it is in a remote area. So let us get a few of these fringe benefit ideas turned out. The Government is destroying the business community. The business community does not know what the Government is doing to it. One day it is this, the next day it is that. A deal is done in a hotel room; a deal is done somewhere else-`Simon says'. Is it any wonder that the business community has all those statements to make today? There is uncertainty for the business community, which I hope I shall be representing very shortly, because we are upset, as business people. A marked lack of knowledge of business was just demonstrated by the Special Minister of State, when he ran on with his little fear campaign about privatisation. There are plenty of business people around who could tell us how to put all of our national assets to work for the benefit of the community and the ownership of the community. That is where those assets will be-in the community's ownership, with people who want a dividend every year and returns on their money making those sorts of decisions. Retailers have been in all sorts of trouble because of the actions of this Government and its promises-the on again, off again situation. There is no doubt-I said this the other day and it is time I repeated it-that we have a Prime Minister now who has to put `use by' dates on his promises. If they were entrenched in consumer law, his promises would be classified as being of the most perishable. Every time he makes one, it lasts for a shorter period than the pervious one. We have reached the stage where all we look to be confronted with in the September tax statement, if we ever get one, are more nasties. For some unknown reason, the Government is hooked on capital gains tax. In 1983-84 Australian property owners paid $4,700m in taxes on their properties. That exceeded company tax by $300m and exceeded sales tax by $500m in that year. Yet the Government keeps ranting on about this equity argument. It just so happens that property owners have to pay tax whether they make a profit or not. They pay it through council rates, land taxes and stamp duties. There is no need to ask those people for more as they pay a substantial amount already. But this Government has this philosophical hang-up. It believes it is okay for people on this front bench to get $80,000 a year and for their wives to get $60,000 a year because that is paid by the Government and that is honest money. But when some poor devil goes out because he wants a small business, the Government sets out to disrupt his endeavours in every way. This year it put up taxes again on pay as you earn workers-a mere 13 per cent after the 23 per cent last year. Those are the sorts of taxes it is burdening people with and it comes in here and says that this is a great Budget. Let us look at this wonderful Budget statement of the Treasurer. He said that Commonwealth outlays would fall and that the deficit would be cut sharply both as a proportion of gross domestic product and in money terms. What he is saying there is that he will borrow less this year than last year. But the accumulated deficit has gone up by $5,000m. Imagine a small businessman going to his bank manager and saying: `I am less indebted this year than last year because last year I borrowed $100,000 and this year I am going to borrow only $90,000, but of course, I have not repaid last year's $100,000.' No one does those sorts of sums. The reality is that this Government, in three Budgets, has borrowed $20,000m. It has not paid any back and it has no intention of paying any back and it has now confronted us in this Budget with an interest bill of $6,700m. Mr Hodgman —How much? Mr TUCKEY —In fact it is estimated at $6,724m and that even beats what is provided for health under its new extravagant mantle. Health could not keep up with it. I thought it could, but it is $6,701m. That tells us now that the interest charge paid on a debt, paid on taxation deferred, is the second biggest direct expenditure item in the Federal Budget. In that I am excluding payments to the States which I see more as a transfer. The Government is paying more in interest than it is spending on de-fence, education and health. That is where we are at and things will get worse next year. In fact, year after year all I have seen is this massive growth which the Government is claiming, this three percent and this four percent. It is roughly equal to the money that the Government has borrowed. In 1983-84 economic growth grew by 3 per cent of the gross proportion of domestic product. The deficit was 4.3 per cent of GDP. In 1984-85 economic growth was claimed to be 4 per cent of GDP and the deficit was 3.3 per cent of the GDP. This year things are looking a little better. We predict a 4.5 per cent economic growth and, of course, we have a deficit of only 2.1 per cent. But I know a lot of businessmen who would not be too proud if they could get turnover up only by the amount of money they had borrowed. There are more problems everywhere. We have procrastination all the time. We have broken promises. We have this massive increase in the price of fuel which goes up and up. I rang some garages in Charlton and Mildura in Victoria and Orange in New South Wales, and what did I find? I found in one town that petrol had gone up in January from 55c a litre to 60c now. In another it had increased from 56.5 to 61.2c a litre and in another town it had increased by a similar amount to 60.9c a litre. That has been caused by this Government and it comes in here and keeps giving us history lessons. Let us get something straight: it has been back to the electorate. It was in government before the last election and it has nobody to blame for the present financial situation but itself. Honourable members may as well look at the big spending. I have a graph of expenditure by Australian governments. The vertical line shows expenditure going up from 31 per cent to 38 per cent, and that increase was created by Gough Whitlam in three years. That was an 11 per cent increase per annum. That is followed by this Government, as the next record holders, with 7 per cent per annum. Expenditure makes for taxes. When we do not have taxes, we have deficits, and that makes long term debt. It appears the Government has doubled the debt. We had $3,300m worth of interest charged in the last Fraser Budget and now we have $6,700m. On simple calculations I believe that means that the debt has doubled. The Australian incorporated debt has doubled. The Government has done it to us. Where do we go from here? We have all sorts of other problems. The Treasurer bemoans the lack of questions from our side. We want to know what he is going to do, then we can ask him some questions. The Budget Papers are just a national account. They tell us how things went. There is no policy or direction. The Government must not tell me that business is not upset about it. I have given honourable members a clear explanation. We have no chance at all of getting this country running and achieving the types of ambitions that we have for it while we have a government that does not know where it is going and just watches things sink. We cannot get far in that direction. I cannot understand why the community, particularly the rural community, cannot have a better deal from this Government. Finally, I see that we have increased the staff of the Australian Taxation Office by 869. I understand that we are going in for self-assessment and more spot audits. I am not complaining about that. However, I say to the Commissioner of Taxation that it is time that he employed some decent people. I am fed up with running into people who are complaining bitterly about inefficient and improperly trained tax inspectors in the Commissioner's office. They do deals with people. A major businessman told me recently that there is now only one difference between us and some of the Asian countries where things do not run too well. He said that he could bargain with the Commissioner just the same as he could with people in Asian countries. The only difference is that the Commissioner does not put half in his pocket when the deal is finished. The Taxation Commissioner threatens people and says: `I think you owe about $50,000 but if you give us $20,000 now that will do'. People either owe $50,000 or nothing. I hope the Commissioner will cut that caper out when he gets his additional staff. I hope he stops terrorising and harassing people. He has a job to do, and we welcome it, but he should do it properly. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(9.28) —Tonight we heard what was alleged to be the response to this Budget from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). I guess all of us must have had a feeling of deja vu, as we heard that gentleman propound what purports to be the Budget strategy of the now Opposition, the former discredited Government, and nothing new appeared. We were promised a rerun of seven years of Fraserism, seven years that produced the worst recession we have seen since the Depression. The Opposition, lost for words on the Budget document, produced its usual hype about gloom and doom for the September tax statement. When will it ever come out of the cave? When will it ever decide that this is 1985 and that there is a new optimism abroad in Australia? For the first time in half a generation Australians have hope. They can see their kids getting jobs and they can see that this country has once again earned the title of the country with the best economy in the Western world. Once again this country has entered into a period of prosperity, the best we have seen for a long time. But the fear campaign carried on by this outclassed and leaderless legion that masquerades as an opposition will again flounder on the rocks of the Government's consistent and successful policies, successful for the last three years and promising to be successful for the next 10. The Opposition in answer merely trots out its tired, worthless old policies of selling off everything that is worth while. Do honourable members believe that this Opposition suggests that the way out of what it perceives to be economic gloom is to sell off Australia's public enterprises? Our spokesman, the Leader of the House, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), mentioned quite a number of enterprises a few minutes ago. Let us look at Qantas Airways Limited. Fancy having the hide to want to sell off Qantas. Qantas happens to rank as the No. 1 airline in the world. For the last three years it has been ranked by the International Air Transport Association as the leading airline in the world, no matter which way we evaluate airline services. Every Australian should be proud to see the flying kangaroo. Every Australian should be pleased that this country, with its very small population, in competition with every other country, has produced the most successful national carrier. The answer from honourable members opposite is to sell it off. We have also been told that they would sell off Trans Australia Airlines. I have some news for them about TAA and Ansett Airlines of Australia. They both happen to rank in the top ten domestic airlines in the world. TAA provides a magnificent service, and I am sick and tired of the criticism about TAA and air fares in Australia that emanates from the discredited, stupid mouths of honourable members opposite. I do not wish to stand here as an apologist for airlines, but I am sick and tired of the rubbish that I hear from honourable members opposite. The simple fact is that the average airline cost around the world for an economy flight is $US.18c a kilometre. The cost of air travel on TAA, the national domestic airline, and on Ansett is $US.17c per kilometre. They have the best safety record and the best standard of service in the world. The Opposition's answer to everything is to sell off those great enterprises, enterprises that it could never ever have produced. Would it not be better if, for once, the Opposition were to take an optimistic and constructive look at Australia and decide that the better thing to do would be to make these enterprises even more efficient by giving them some support? Let me tell honourable members opposite the facts about TAA. Before we came into government, the capital base of TAA in public money was $15m. We beefed it up to well over $100m to reduce its debt ratio. Even with that very small capital base, TAA has evolved into one of the most successful domestic carriers in the world. The Opposition was in office for 31 out of the last 36 years and in all its period in office it could not do anything to support that national airline. A lousy $15m was its capital base. Every Australian except honourable members opposite is proud to see TAA as our national domestic airline. Now we have made it even more efficient. The type of attitude that honourable members opposite have displayed over the last seven years was marked by confrontation and division in this nation. This was obvious in the leader that they had. All those years produced the worst economic performance of any government, with widespread industrial confrontation and an horrendous wage price spiral that led to double-digit inflation and unemployment. Fortunately, that recipe for disaster has been rejected by Australians and will continue to be rejected by Australians. I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), in his speech, said that there was nothing about tax reform in the Budget. We will get that in September. In the last six months, there was an opportunity for Australia to have the greatest tax reform that this country or any other country has ever seen. Mr Beale —And you blew it! Mr JOHN BROWN —I will tell the honourable member what blew it. It was people such as him-the genius who has come from private enterprise and was going to take over this Parliament. He has not made a dent yet. He would not make a dent in a marshmallow. He was going to be the new saviour of business enterprise. Members of his class helped defeat tax reform. They got to the newspapers. They objected to every tenet of option C. The media made a pretty good effort to sink it. I noticed with some sadness and yet, with some respect, that on the last two Saturdays in the Sydney Morning Herald, Peter Bowers, probably the most respected journalist in the Gallery, has had the decency and good sense to write articles that apologised for the attitude that the media took towards tax reform. He said that it had an opportunity to support a government that was game enough to set about what might have been politically unpopular; yet everybody knew it was the right thing for Australia. Peter Bowers is now apologising that the media, which he represents, did not have the decency to support the Government in its urgent desire to get tax reform. It took us on on every occasion, and now the time has passed. That opport- unity has been lost, temporarily at least. Peter Bowers, for one, has had the decency to recrim- inate his own class in the media for helping to sink it. Mr Hodgman —You are a bunch of limp wimps. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) — Order! The honourable member for Denison will cease interjecting. Mr JOHN BROWN —I will not quote that expression, but I am very proud to stand here as a Minister in this Government, a government that has provided excellent and honest government in this country for the last three years. If honourable members opposite are worried about polls, I shall tell them about polls. I sat in opposition for five years. For four years and ten months we were in front on polls. It did not help us win an election. It did not help us win the last one. If honourable members opposite think that they can wallow in the luxury of being in front in the opinion polls, wait until they have had a look at the Bulletin next week to see where they are then. We shall see whether they are all smiling then and whether the answer to all their hopes and ambitions is a poll in a newspaper. Mr Everingham —It is a long hike yet. Mr JOHN BROWN —There is a long way to go. The so-called alternative policies put out by the Opposition tonight are tired old red herrings that would not catch a minnow, let alone attract the voters of Australia. The Opposition has had the hide to criticise the Government's relationship with the trade union movement. It is worthwhile to spend a minute in reviewing the relationship the previous Government had with the trade unions. It was disgraceful. Never ever was there worse division in the Australian community. That Government had the worst industrial relations record in this country. Under three years of Labor government we have had the lowest industrial- Mr Beale —Disputation. Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member very much. We have had the lowest industrial disputation record in Australia for 16 years. If we took out of that industrial record strikes by the Builders Labourers Federation, which we are doing something about-honourable members opposite were never going to do anything about it-and if we took out the strike upon which the high principled doctors embarked, there would hardly have been a strike in Australia in the past two years. Honourable members opposite should compare that record with their sorry, dismal, divided record as a government that sought to lead Australia, but led it into despair, gloom and division, setting Australian against Australian. Let me give honourable members a good example of what we have done with industrial relations. When we came into government, the steel industry in Australia, for one, was in absolute disarray. It was fraught with industrial disputation and lacked any sort of prosperity. It was losing its export market. Productivity was down and there was total despair. With the benefit of the steel plan that was evolved by this Government, which involved getting the unions and the employers to sit down together and solve their differences, that industry is now restructured. For the first time in a long period, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd has produced a profit in its steel division. That was unheard of. There has been no industrial disputation in two years. The Government promised to provide a bounty of $70m a year to help to get Australian productivity up to 85 per cent. We have not had to pay the bounty. Productivity increased without it. BHP involved itself in an investment in new equipment. The unions agreed to increase productivity and to remove industrial disputation. Both parties have stuck to their side of the agreement, and the steel industry is now in good shape. Could honourable members opposite possibly have done that when in government! No way known! All they could do would be to inflame whatever industrial dispute was occurring, as they are trying to do with the meat industry dispute in the Northern Territory. I say to honourable members opposite that I happen to know something about the meat industry, having been a member of a meat union for 20 years, and the President of the Employers Federation for seven of those 20 years. I know something about it. I will not bother canvassing the matter here, but honourable members opposite are acting in a very stupid and disgraceful fashion. They will not win. They ought to drop off. That advice is from somebody who knows something about the industry. Tonight, the Leader of the Opposition called for market-place bargaining on industrial awards. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr JOHN BROWN —Do honourable members opposite want to go back to the law of the jungle? I do not think that the Australian public wants that. I think that it has enjoyed the industrial peace of the last two years. For the first time ever we have had unions and employers in accord. Every Australian should thank this Government and the trade unions for being able to put together the prices and incomes accord which has managed to give us prosperity in Australia. Honourable members opposite should not think for one minute that business is supporting them. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) summed them up yesterday. They are a team of mugs and hillbillies in terms of economic management. The business community knows that and the Australian community knows that. There is no way in the world that business will come crawling back to them. I want honourable members opposite to compare the industrial peace of the last two years with the gloom and the industrial disputation of their period in government. They should compare it with the Melbourne Club squattocracy of the Fraser years to see where the Government would go under those old rules. It would disappear once again into those smoke-filled rooms of the Melbourne Club. Those days are gone. Max Gillies was right when he said: `Go away'. That is what the public said to the Opposition. The public said to members of the Melbourne Club: `We have entered a new era. We are in 1985. This is the twentieth century. We have a government of hope'. This Government, in stark contrast with the actions of the previous Government in doing all those deals in secret, has put its cards on the table. We have had employers and employees sitting down together. That is how we have managed to get some industrial peace. That is how we will continue to get industrial peace. One thing the Leader of the Opposition did right tonight was say that the Government has enjoyed fortunate economic circumstances. He is exactly right, but he drew the wrong conclusion. He should have realised that those circumstances are fortuitous at the moment because of the policies of this Government. Mr McGauran —That is a contradiction in terms. Mr JOHN BROWN —It is not a contradiction in terms at all; it is the absolute truth. Mr Ronald Edwards —Being an intellect and being in the Country Party is a contradiction in terms. Mr JOHN BROWN —Being of reasonable intelligence and being in the Country Party is not a contradiction in terms. All we had from the Leader of the Opposition tonight was a speech about problems that may beset the Australian economy. Simon Legree! He can come in here and preach gloom, disaster and disappointment, but that just does not add up. It is not the situation in Australia at the moment. Ask any young Australians how they feel about the policies that we have introduced for youth; ask them about the 410,000 jobs that have been created in the last three years; ask them about the record of the previous Government. It rather amused me tonight when I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that he was going to talk about his youth policies when he addresses the nation on Sunday night. I have news for him. He drew an audience in the great debate because the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was sufficiently generous to give him an audience. I must say that he performed very well. Let us see what sort of audience he can draw for himself on Sunday night. The ratings will make interesting reading. I think it is fair to look back in history to see where the characters opposite stand on youth matters. Are they members of the party that opposed the vote for 18-year-olds? Yes, they are. They opposed it every time it was here. Are they members of the party that kept the youth unemployment rate at a lousy $36 for nine years? Are they members of the party that had that raffle, that barrel thing, that sent the youngsters to Vietnam? If they want to talk about youth, they should start by having a good, introspective look at their policy for youth. It did not exist. Youth did not exist in Australia. I hope that honourable members opposite will look at the policies that we introduced just this week. Australia knows that it can look forward to many years of good, compassionate and efficient government from this Government, and it will get it. The community knows that the Labor Party, with its great cross-section of views, can provide Australia with good government. It rather amused me to see the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) parading himself here as a successful businessman. I just happen to have a fair bit of contact with business groups and I know exactly what they think about the characters opposite, and whether they would like to see them back in government. Business, the former supporter of the Liberals, is leaving them in droves because it realises that it is going to get nothing from them. In this Budget the Government has continued to display a strong purpose of direction. Both the business sector and the community can feel secure in the knowledge that the economic future will continue to be strong and managed in a consistent manner. This consistency of approach is reflected in the fact that we have created a mechanism to allow for a continued private sector led recovery. I think it is fair to point out to Opposition members that 90 per cent of the 410,000 new jobs have been created in the private sector. Who would have thought that that was possible from listening to the diatribe that Opposition characters pour on the Labor Government? Yet they are the facts. Ninety per cent of those jobs have been in the private sector. In fact, 50,000 of them occurred in tourism, an industry that the Opposition did not even know existed. Yet I can see sitting here a few people whose electorates turn around the success of tourism. I do not have to point them out to Opposition members; they all know about that. But they could do nothing about it. That is just another example of what they did not do. When we came to office, we inherited a $9.6 billion deficit. Mr Nehl —That is a myth. Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member was not here. I take it the honourable member can read the newspapers? I take it that he heard the Treasurer tell us all yesterday that on the first day of government he and the Prime Minister were acquainted with the fact by the Secretary to the Treasury that the deficit was going to be $9.6 billion. I noticed, sitting here listening to the Treasurer's speech, that honourable members were making plenty of noise until he announced that the deficit would be $4.9 billion. They sat there in stunned silence for 10 minutes. They did not think that it was at all possible that a government could produce the economic runs that this one has. The deficit is to be $4.9 billion. That means that government borrowing demands will be down, that there will be less demand on the financial market, which will mean a decrease in interest rates. That will help the private sector to recover even more and provide more jobs. Surely that is what this Government is about. We came in with a policy of jobs, jobs, jobs and we have fulfilled it. I can recall one Budget when a newspaper down on the south coast of New South Wales produced a front page that said `Lies, lies, lies', which contrasts starkly with our policy of jobs, jobs, jobs that we have delivered. We promised half a million jobs in three years. We are in front of the target, and we will produce them. I think that tonight the full paucity of imagination and capacity in the Opposition was revealed. The response to the Budget produced not one new thought. I thought it was in stark contrast to the Budget that was produced last night. The Budget was produced by a government that has been the envy of the developed world. Ours is the fastest growing economy in the Western world. It must kill Opposition members to realise, but it does not kill their constituents to realise, that we will have a 15 per cent non-farm growth in three years, something which no other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country has been able to produce, and all because the people of Australia had the good sense to elect a Labor Government in February 1983. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Motion (by Mr John Brown) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.50) —For those who love that great Australian masterpiece, The Magic Pudding, written by Norman Lindsay and first published by Angus and Robertson Ltd back in 1918, the punishment for puddin' thieves is well known. As was so explicitly stated by Bill Barnacle, it is as follows: The blows you feel we do not deal in common, vulgar thumping; to higher motives we appeal-it is to teach you not to steal, your heads we now are bumping. You need not go on pumping appeals for kinder dealing, we like to watch you jumping, we like to hear you squealing. We rather think this thumping will take a bit of healing. We hope those blows on the nose, these bended snouts, these tramped-on toes, these pains that you are feeling the truth will be revealing How wrong is puddin'-stealing. That is precisely what has happened in this House tonight. Our own puddin' thief, the dark deceiver of Australian politics, the Treasurer (Mr Keating), has had his nose well and truly thumped and his toes well and truly tramped on by the next Prime Minister of Australia, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). Like the possum's claim that the wombat's hat was high for ventilation purposes-he wears a hat like that to keep his brain cool-the Treasurer's pretence of proper economic management has been completely destroyed in a most devastating manner by the Leader of the Opposition. We all know that the wombat's hat was high-not for ventilation purposes, but because he had hidden the magic puddin' under it. He and his fellow thief possum thought that they could deceive Bill Barnacle, Bunyip Bluegum, Sam Sawnoff and Benjimen Brandysnap, with lies, falsehood, deception, and sophistry. But, Mr Speaker, as you will well remember, and as everybody knows, their fraudulent device failed lamentably. What have we seen tonight? In one of the most powerful and persuasive speeches ever delivered in this Parliament, the next Prime Minister of Australia has exposed the truth. Under the dangerously misguided policies of the Hawke socialist Government and a level of economic incompetence which now surpasses even that of the dark Whitlam years, we now find our nation to be literally on the brink of bankruptcy, mortgaged up to the hock to foreign creditors, the future of our children encumbered with a national debt which has more than doubled in less than two years, inflation moving upwards, hotly pursued by interest rates which we were promised would come down in 1985 and which are now starting to go through the roof. We find the highest interest rates in real terms that Australians have had to suffer since the dark years of the Great Depression, a dollar which the Government said would float, and which promptly sank, a foreign affairs policy in tatters, our friends and allies consistently insulted and slighted, and almost every major Hawke socialist Government foreign affairs initiative applauded by Moscow; old partnerships either jeopardised or destroyed and a measure of predictability equivalent to that of the Mad Hatter's tea party. I do not speak tonight on the Budget but, on behalf of the overwhelming majority of Australians, to warmly congratulate my Leader and the next Prime Minister of Australia on his outstanding contribution to the history of this Parliament in this distinguished chamber and his outstanding speech this evening. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(9.54) —I wish to use this adjournment debate to express my concern about the position of retired mine workers and their wives or widows. I refer to two aspects of the circumstances in which they frequently find themselves. The first is the treatment of the superannuation pension arrangements which applied to all retired mine workers before the superannuation pension scheme was replaced by a lump sum arrangement. The superannuation pension arrangements involve basically three levels of payment. The first is the single rate pension for retired mine workers. The second is the married rate pension for retired mine workers which includes a supplement for the mine worker's spouse. The third is the widow's pension which is lower than the single rate pension for a single, retired mine worker. A problem arises in relation to the taxation treatment of the married rate pension. The pension rate is high enough to exceed the tax-free threshold and to require the married pensioner to pay income tax on what is a comparatively meagre income level. Discussions are taking place with Treasury regarding these pension matters. My colleague the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) and I intend to pursue this matter in the hope that retired mine workers may have recognised for taxation purposes the fact that the pensions they receive are not determined solely on the basis of the value of their contributions during their working lives but are determined by whether they are single or have dependent spouses. In several ways there is a significant difference between the mine workers' superannuation pension arrangement and the superannuation entitlements of other retired people from other types of occupations. The second matter to which I refer concerns the issue of advice to Mr Eric Gracie. Mr Gracie is the Registrar of the Mine Workers Superannuation Tribunal. He has received advice from the Australian Taxation Office to the effect that all retired mine worker superannuitants and the widows of deceased mine workers must complete the general exemption form. However, I am particularly concerned that the widows of former mine workers, whose pensions only marginally exceed the tax-free threshold, should be subjected to the worry and the emotional trauma of filling in a form of this kind. Many of these widows have had no experience in completing questionnaires or forms of any kind. This task was always fulfilled by their deceased husbands. To subject aged widows to this type of requirement, when a cursory examination of their circumstances would indicate that they can only marginally be affected by taxation requirements, is to my mind an example of bureaucratic nonsense. I have been in contact with the Treasurer's office concerning this matter and am awaiting a response at the moment. It is a matter of great concern to me. My colleague Bob Brown and I have been discussing the implications of both these matters and will be pursuing them further with the relevant authorities and with the organations of retired mine workers within our electorates. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(9.58) —I am glad to see that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) is in the House. It is stated on page 73 of Budget Paper No. I: A marked deterioration in the terms of trade is expected, reflecting primarily the relative weakness of world prices for our commodity-based exports. The importance of our export trade in social and economic terms is reflected in the simple fact that one job in nine arises as a result of our exports. However, the jobs which should be created in this area are not there because our share of world trade is falling. Over the last ten years our share of world trade has fallen by a disappointing 30 per cent. There are a number of reasons for this situation, but they may be aggregated under the general title, `loss of competitiveness'. Collectively we have something to learn from the John Bertrands and from Queensland's Southern Cross Yachts who know how to be competitive in world markets. The European Management Forum recently published an index of competitiveness of the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and six developing countries. Over a year Australia dropped from twelfth to sixteenth place. Our export industries have suffered from high cost and uncertain supply. This survey also found that Australia ranked poorly in terms of state interference and government regulation. It found that we suffered from a lack of motivation and flexibility in both the labour force and management. The, sadly, few honourable members of this House who come from the business stable will know what all this means. Our export industries have been offered some temporary respite by the devaluation of the dollar. This window of opportunity will not be open long. We have all suffered a fall in our standard of living, as we have in our ability to pay for overseas goods and services; but our exporters have the chance to become a little more competitive on world markets. We know that the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) is a working man because he has his overalls on tonight. Where is the response of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to this window of opportunity? Mr Punch —How would you know? Mr BEALE —I have been there. There is no response from the ACTU despite the fact that one job in nine depends on exports and despite the fact that increased exports offer the best chance of creating more jobs. The ACTU has now told the Government that, despite the clear economic reality that everyone in Australia is poorer by devaluation, this fact will not be recognised in salaries and wages and conditions of work. This means that the short term benefits of the devaluation will not be passed on to the community as a whole but will be absorbed by that pocket of privilege in our society known as the job protection cartel. All the loose words, all the hedging, all the manipulations of the English language by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in this Budget debate serve only to underline the extent to which the ACTU is dominating this Government's policy. The illegitimate use of power by the trade union movement is being used to further the interests of those in jobs at the expense of those who do not have jobs, in particular the youth of our nations and at the expense of the community at large. It is well known in trade union circles that certain senior officials of the ACTU have driving political ambitions. They want high office here and in other places. To do that they appear to have decided to make deals which will keep the moderates quiet and the Left happy. The price of their personal ambition-I ask the Minister for Trade, who is at the table, to note this-will be the destruction of our export trade. I appeal to honourable members opposite to use their influence with the trade union movement to save our exporters and I appeal to the ACTU leadership to place the national interest before its own personal ambitions. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(10.03) —I want to draw the attention of honourable members to the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which begins next week in Geneva. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) will be leading the Australian delegation, which demonstrates the high priority the Government places on this meeting and on the continued existence of the Treaty. While the NPT is often referred to as the most successful arms control treaty in existence, there is no doubt that at present it is under severe threat. These threats come from two directions: The threat of vertical proliferation by the nuclear weapons states which are parties to the Treaty; and the horizontal proliferation threatened by new states wishing to acquire nuclear weapons. By far the greatest threat to the NPT is the failure of the nuclear weapons states to live up to their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty. Under this Article the nuclear weapons states undertook in 1970 to `pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the arms race at an early date'. Fifteen years later where do we stand? Negotiations on reducing strategic arsenals are at a standstill, while the total number of strategic nuclear weapons belonging to the nuclear weapons states has resen from 6,000 in 1970 to around 20,000. Negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty, which were underway in 1980, are making only very slow progress, despite the insistence of the non-nuclear weapons states that progress must be made in these negotiations as evidence of good faith. Of equally great concern are the improvements in the accuracy and reliability of the nuclear weapons systems of the super-powers. Highly accurate ballistic missiles can deliver warheads to small military targets. They are designed for fighting as well as deterring a nuclear war. These new weapons create an unstable strategic environment. By continually improving its nuclear capability a country may come to believe that it can destroy its enemy's retaliatory capability by striking first. While the USA, the USSR and the United Kingdom have failed in their obligations as signatories to the Treaty, other nuclear and potential nuclear weapons nations, including France, Spain, China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and Israel, are not even signatories. The example set by these countries increases the threat of horizontal proliferation. France, as we all know, persists in testing nuclear weapons in the Pacific, and is thought unlikely to sign the protocols on the recently concluded South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. There is a disturbing tendency among some Third World nations to regard the acquisition of nuclear weapons as a way of achieving great nation status, and to view the NPT as a neo-colonial way of reserving nuclear weapons to the club of those who already had them in 1970. The inability of the NPT to prevent horizontal proliferation to countries such as China and India is one outcome of this. The apparent acquisition of nuclear weapons by South Africa not only has created a highly dangerous situation on the African continent, but also has helped to spread the view that other African countries should be allowed to acquire such weapons. Under these conditions, commercial nuclear power programs for supposed peaceful purposes become the means of acquiring the technology and the raw materials, and the lesson learned by many countries is that it is more advantageous to stay outside the Treaty. As long as this continues, the NPT undoubtedly loses its credibility as an arms control measure. Both weapons states and non-weapons states need to adopt a broader view of the interests of the future of humanity that transcends national advantage. It is therefore essential that the Australian delegation to the NPT Review Conference contributes to maintaining the Treaty and to strengthening the extent to which it is taken seriously by all countries. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.08) —I and my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), and my other Tasmanian colleagues who are not in the House tonight, decided to go on a trip around Tasmania to talk to the ordinary people-the people who work in the timber mills; the people who work in the furniture factories, and the people on the shop floor and to find out from them the problems they have. They said to me: `Bruce, why does that fellow Bob Brown get all the publicity in Tasmania? Why does the Tasmanian Wilderness Society get all the prime coverage in the media in Tasmania? Why do all those greenies and ultra-conservationists get all the play when we are not able to say a word about what is going on in Australia today?' I and my colleague the honourable member for Denison thought that it was about time we made a concerted effort to try to tell the people of Tasmania that, once again, they are under threat, as they were on the dams issue. What do they want in Tasmania? Do they want a person to come to Tasmania with a haversack on his back and to walk around and say: `There are no industries. There is no power. There is nothing; just a kerosene lamp'? Do they want that or do they want the people of Tasmania to be able to earn a decent, respectable living? They talk about youth employment and so forth? Do they want the Tasmanian young people to be able to get jobs in their State? Mr McGauran —No, they are selfish. Mr GOODLUCK —I agree; they are absolutely selfish. Mr McGauran —They are Victorian trendies. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, they are too. They want Tasmania just for themselves. They want to be able to lock up Tasmania and say: `It is a beautiful place but do not do anything there that may impair the environment'. They have already locked up 30 per cent of Tasmania. The next attack will be on the woodchip and timber industry. They are trying to deride the ordinary people, who are not as eloquent as I am and who are not able to tell the people in the rest of Australia about the problems in Tasmania. They want somebody to talk for them, and that is what they will get from the honourable member for Denison, myself and the other good members. Mr McGauran —Bass. Mr GOODLUCK —And the honourable members from the electorates of Bass, Lyons and Braddon. We need to get involved in this issue because the greenies and the conservationists will again win the day if we do not work hard and try to tell the people of Tasmania that they will be conned again as they were over the dams issue in South West Tasmania. We need to tell them straight. I am a free enterprise man; I believe that if you want to work you should be able to and that the market should be able to run free. The other day I heard on AM the Managing Director of Ampol Petroleum Ltd talk about the price of petrol in Sydney. He said: `Look, it is good that the people of Australia can get cheap petrol here when they want it and cheap petrol there when they want it'. There was a variation of about 13c a litre in Sydney. He was talking about a price of 43c a litre in one part of Sydney and 56c a litre in another part. It is 60c a litre in some parts of Australia, including Tasmania. When we introduced import parity we did it for the national good, so that there would be conservation and alternatives to petrol. Unfortunately we wanted everybody to get a fair go, but they have not. The oil companies and the Labor Government, as I have said on many occasions, need to have a good look at the oil industry in Australia and not just for those who work in it. Everybody, including oil industry employees, should look at the industry and make certain that there is some fairness for all Australians, not the disparity and variation that occurs. When we increase the price of petrol, the price of everything is increased. It flows right through into the economy, to transportation, the price of goods and services, et cetera. Mr Hodgman —Keating wants 3c a litre off. Mr GOODLUCK —The Treasurer has been caught on this one because he said that it was stealth at the petrol pump. He and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that when they got elected they would reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre. Mr McGauran —The little crook. Mr GOODLUCK —They are little crooks; they cooked it up on this one. It is useless giving assistance to the poor and needy when what they are doing with the price of petrol is taking it all away. The Government needs to do something because if it does not it will get caught in the web of deceit and it will deceive members of the Australian public in an area that is most important to them-the use of their motor cars. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.13) —In March of this year I was a member of the Australian delegation to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Fourth International Conference on Adult Education. The report of the Australian delegation has now been released and I recommend it to all honourable members. They can obtain a copy from my office or from the Australian National Commission for UNESCO. Adult education in Australia has often been referred to as the poor relation of the education field. Australian adult education is based on the State system, making the development of a co-ordinated national strategy difficult. Adult education in Australia covers a wide range of non-formal, non-credit programs spanning the various educational sectors, including community and work place education. Increasingly, adult education is directed at meeting the needs of individuals suffering some form of educational or social disadvantage. There is much in Australian adult education of which we can be proud, but we have currently no adequate documentation or statistics of our achievements and that, together with the lack of a national strategy, makes our role in meetings such as the UNESCO meeting in Paris all the more difficult. There is, I believe, a strong case for the appointment of a national council to advise on the consolidation and co-ordination of the work of the various authorities in the Australian States. Such a council would be a key element in advising the Australian Government on the development of a national strategy for adult education. Of particular interest to all associated with adult education will be the result of the inquiry currently being carried out by Alan Davies. Finally, Mr Speaker, may I compliment the members of the Australian delegation to the UNESCO conference in Paris: Mr John Kennedy, Deputy Permanent Delegate, Australian delegation to UNESCO; Mr John Wellings, Principal Advisor to the New South Wales Board of Adult Education and President of the Australian Association of Adult Education; Dr Chris Duke-then Director, Centre for Continuing Education at the Australian National University and now Professor of Adult Education at Warwick University in the United Kingdom; and Mr Tony Delves, Director, Council of Adult Education in Victoria. Mr Hodgman —What about yourself? Mr HOLLIS —I am too modest to mention myself and the contribution I made. They re- presented Australia with distinction. Special mention should also be made of the staff of the Department of Education, of the office of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), and of the staff of the Australian National Commission for UNESCO. Mr McGauran —It was a big junket. Mr HOLLIS —I happen to have paid my own way to Paris, therefore it was no junket as far as I was concerned. Mr McGauran —You were on your way to Togo. Mr HOLLIS —But I paid my own way to Paris, and my accommodation. Finally, I mention the Ambassador to UNESCO, the Hon. Gough Whitlam. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(10.16) —There appears to be a developing recognition that the Federal Government will offer only partial financial assistance to the sugar industry. It is suggested that the Queensland Government fund the balance needed to support a realistic price for peak entitlements. That has been promoted by a Labor spokesman in this House today. The honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) said that since 1960 the Commonwealth had been matching State grants on a dollar for dollar basis and vice versa. That is incorrect, as is the inference that the sugar industry has been receiving financial assistance since 1960. The sugar industry paid its way up until the perilous situation in which it found itself recently. It has funded its own sugar loading facilities along the coast of Queensland and it has also funded the major sugar holding facilities in that area. In the Queensland State Parliament today the State Opposition Leader, Nev Warburton, also suggested that the Queensland Government should be funding the crisis in the sugar industry with market support. I strongly suggest to this House that the provision of a realistic financial guarantee to the sugar industry is the responsibility of the Federal Government alone because the return to viability is of significant national economic importance. The financial aid sought is not for the small number of cane growers alone but also for the hundreds of thousands of Australians who work directly in the sugar industry or for enterprises which service and supply the industry. Estimates of the number of people who would be adversely affected by a collapse of the sugar industry vary from 200,000 to 300,000. The loss in employees' taxation revenue to the nation, the transfer of once employed people to the social security system, the loss of tax on sugar milling company profits and the loss of excise and sales tax on rum and spirits would impact significantly on the economy of this nation. Cane grower organisations estimate that support of $220 per tonne for the 1985 season as recommended by the Savage report will cover only the current cash costs of production, not including interest repayments, for just 43 per cent of growers. A floor of $240 per tonne is generally regarded as the bare minimum for the bulk of growers to remain in the industry until the market recovers. The financial requirements from the Federal Government in this survival exercise are not unique. The Government has recently provided cash assistance for the steel industry of some $350m over five years. The main beneficiary was the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, which has recorded a record profit. BHP also lessens its tax liability by offsetting losses in some operations against high profits recorded in oil and gas production. The motor industry has been provided with assistance of $150m over five years. All of these motor enterprises are multinationals. Should the sugar growers continue the trend to grow alternative crops in competition with the traditional growers of that rural production there is a danger of a major collapse in the fruit and vegetable industries of Australia. No State in Australia will be isolated from this perilous result. It is in the national interest of all State horticulture industries for the Government to resolve this imminent problem by providing support to the minimum $240 per tonne estimated by expert assessments by the sugar industry. Regions such as Bundaberg and the Isis district in the Hinkler electorate are serviced by a major irrigation system designed to give security during periods of low rainfall and lessen the devastating effect of drought. If the sugar industry is totally devastated the growers will turn to alternative crops and utilise the land with water allocations for other than sugar production. The trend is already noticeable as farmers use surplus land to supplement their farm income. The mild, sub-tropical climate around latitude 25* permits all year production. Tomato production, for instance, returned record figures of some $35m last financial year. The quality is high and Bundaberg tomatoes are sought eagerly at the southern markets. The result, however, has transferred a part of the sugar related problem of low returns to the former traditional growers of tomatoes, both in the Bundaberg district and other areas of Australia. Other crops are being introduced now into sugar areas and many rural areas of Australia will be affected. The sugar growers must not be blamed; they are seeking only survival and maintenance of a viable farm unit. I understand that the Burdekin district, with the implementation of that major water resource undertaking, has the potential to destroy the current rice production around Leeton. It is clear that the problems of sugar production and any change of land use will create even more widespread perils if the Federal Government does not act with a degree of responsibility and offer the $240 per tonne floor price. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(10.21) —I rise tonight to draw to the attention of the House yet another indication of the absolute and obvious lie that the Liberal Party of Australia ran in the last election campaign, that being that it would repeal the assets test. No one in this place honestly believes that that has ever been an intention of the Opposition. The fact that it took so long for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to put out a statement before the last election supporting that proposition is testimony to this fact. On this occasion I draw to the attention of the House the comments of the President of the Liberal Party, Mr Valder, on the Westpac video. Not only is Mr Valder the New South Wales and Federal President of the Liberal Party but also he is the chief fund raiser, the bag man. He is also the chief push behind the leadership quest of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. What did Mr Valder have to say? He said that a coalition government would have to cut welfare spending and `the assets test is a very small step in that direction'. He went on to say: I've said many times, you know, let the Labor Party get on with implementing the more necessary but perhaps less popular parts of our policy, and let's hope they get them into place and promptly lose office, and I think that will be a very good scenario, don't you? I became a member of this place younger than all other members in this place and I was very idealistic. I thought we were all here for the welfare of all Australians and we were all prepared to stand for our beliefs, but clearly this is not the case. What did the Press have to say about this? I quote from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 2 August, headed `Mr Valder's Little Slip'. It states: But Mr Peacock's rather cynical approach to policy formulation invites the party's supporters and the public at large to be distrusting. Indeed, Mr Valder's interview betrays a certain cynicism . . . But voters are entitled to wonder how genuine is his opposition to some other government . . . initiatives. The Australian Financial Review stated: The underlying implication is that in opposing such initiatives as the assets test, the tax on fringe benefits and other proposals of the Government, the Liberals are engaged in a sham. The article concluded: This kind of political cynicism suggests strongly that the Liberals are a long way from deserving a return to government. What did Andrew have to say about this? Andrew is a very firm, strong leader. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barton should refer to the honourable member by his electorate. Mr PUNCH —I am sorry, it is hard. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has a firm intellect. He had this to say about John Valder: He brings a talent to the Liberal Party that I know I will get, not merely through fund raising, but his administrative ability, and I think he's going to be a very good president indeed. Of course, he was forced to concede: . . . there is a limit to the extent that you can get welfare down. What makes Mr Valder's comments so potent and what highlights the Leader of the Opposition's cynicism is, of course, his own comments. I draw the attention of the House to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition in September 1981 at the National Press Club, where he said: . . . the `burgeoning area' of social welfare `has to be cut'. He went on to say: . . . means perhaps some form of income or means testing. He said that, if he was ever in such a position to implement the changes, he would. He said: So much of government spending goes to people who demonstrably do not need government assistance . . . I think a start could be made by making all assistance to families and individuals income-related. How cynical is this? How cynical can it get and how much longer will it go on? I take the opportunity tonight to call on those opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, to come clean on their position on the assets test and on social welfare spending and to bring back a bit of honesty into the Liberal Party. Mr Slipper —Mr Speaker- Motion (by Mr Howe) agreed to: That the question now be put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.26 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 22 August 1985: Acts Interpretation Act-Statements relating to extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report-Council of the Australian National University report for 1984. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984-Statement of particulars of directions given under Sub-section 26(1), dated 11 June 1985.